I move—

When this Bill was introduced at second reading, my hon. Leader indicated that we accepted it in principle, but that we had certain objections to the powers contained in the Bill and that we would deal with the matter in the Committee Stage. Now the Bill has emerged from the Committee of the whole House, in the view of this side of the House, in a very satisfactory way. Most of the amendments we proposed have been accepted and we find ourselves in the position of being able to support this Bill at the third reading with perhaps even more enthusiasm than at the second reading.

I want to say that it is a pity that we were not able properly to discuss the question as to whether this matter should not rather have been put into the hands of the Minister of the Interior rather than in the hands of the Minister of Justice. We still feel that Interior is the proper Department to deal with the powers contained in this Bill. The pity is that the House was not really able to decide or to discuss the matter thoroughly, because the Minister indicated during the discussions in the Committee Stage that this was a Cabinet decision and that the matter had already been decided. This is a pity because the Minister by his indication, such being the workings of this House, rather also bound the majority of hon. members of this House to that decision, and we did not really have a discussion about it. It is a pity, also, because in principle we are all agreed that these powers should be exercised by some Minister, that there should be such a Department as is envisaged and that we should prepare ourselves for all the exigencies for which the Bill provides.

This is a Bill with the widest of powers, but when one is dealing with the circumstances anticipated, catastrophe caused either by human or by natural agencies, the prospect and the horror of a thermo-nuclear bomb, then obviously immediate and efficient action is necessary and the widest powers are required to deal with any such exigency, many of the effects of which are unknown, and have to be dealt with ad hoc and in the best way possible, with all the possible power at the disposal of the State.

For all those reasons we obviously agree to the Bill being passed at this stage. There are, of course, a number of powers granted by the Bill which are to be exercised before a state of emergency occurs, but obviously also one has to be prepared to accept these powers in order to prepare South Africa for the catastrophes which we hope will not occur, but which we cannot anticipate but dare not avoid attempting to anticipate. Perhaps the most important amendment that the House agreed to was the one which provided that all these powers should in the end come before this House; that in the end every directive and every regulation made will come before this House, and will lapse if it is not positively approved by this House. So, as I said in the beginning, the Bill in the form in which it has now emerged and for which we will now vote is a great improvement. It is in principle the same Bill that it was, but it has all the safeguards that we had hoped to achieve for it, and we shall, therefore, support it at third reading.

I just want to say that I do not agree that the Bill has emerged in the Committee Stage in any materially altered form. One amendment has been accepted which I think is an improvement, namely the one referred to by the last speaker, that is, that regulations will come before this House and can be reviewed. But I am afraid that as far as I am concerned the basic objections I had to this Bill at the second reading, those contained in the two major clauses, Clauses 3 and 9, still remain, and they are quite unchanged by any amendments moved in the Committee Stage. No important amendments were accepted in respect of those clauses in the Committee Stage. The major objections I have, such as the Minister’s ability, without any control whatever, to take certain great powers without declaring a state of emergency, still obtain. There is the fact that no time factor is set on the period of compulsory training, and the fact that such training and such service may be demanded of anybody between the ages of 17 and 65 in times of peace. I might say the only real training to which the Minister keeps referring is that of fire-fighting, and all the other details listed in Clause 3 were never referred to. All these are factors which still render the objections I had to this Bill at second reading as valid now at third reading. I want to point out that most hon. members who spoke in favour of the Bill as it has appeared in this House and as it was finally accepted at second reading spoke of it as if it were intended to cover a time of war, when there had, for instance, been atomic bombing. Sir, this Bill does not in fact deal with that situation at all. In times of war the emergency powers required by the State are adequately catered for by legislation already on the Statute Book, such as the Defence Act, which gives the Government all the powers needed in time of war. Indeed, I have no doubt that such powers will be taken and war emergency measures will immediately be passed as they were passed during the last war. I might say also that under common law in any case the Government has very great powers in any time of national emergency. So I do not consider that this Bill is as vitally required at this moment as do other hon. members on this side. I think there was adequate time to have allowed an Emergency Planning Bill, which we do require, to go to a Select Committee to be properly worked out before the House agreed to grant powers to the Minister. For the same reason, therefore, that I discussed in considerable detail in the second reading, although I am in favour of planning for emergency situations, I do not like the Bill which was introduced by the Minister and which was accepted at second reading, and which has been amended only to some very small degree in the Committee Stage. So I wish to record my objection to this Bill at third reading.

The hon. member for Houghton has made the same point again that she raised earlier, and that is that we should wait until we are at war before taking emergency measures.

I did not say that.

It comes to that. Sir, we do not like measures of this nature either, but we have to be prepared. Many of us on this side have experienced bombing in foreign countries. We saw what hardships can be inflicted on the civilian population and what preparedness is necessary to withstand attacks from conventional weapons, let alone from atomic weapons. Therefore we would be failing in our duty if we did not take adequate steps now to prepare our people beforehand so that we are ready for any emergency which may arise. With all that is happening in the world to-day we do not know when these things may happen to us. I say it is the duty of this House to see that all sections of the community are protected. In this country there is more necessity for that than in the other older countries because we have sections of our population which are not as educated as others and which have to be trained to face an emergency of any nature. The hon. member for Houghton points out that we can deal with an emergency in war-time under the Defence Act. That is quite true, and we also have the Public Safety Act. But the emergencies contemplated in this Bill are not met by either of those Acts. Although we of the United Party do not like giving a Minister the powers we have been forced to give him in this instance we say it is necessary for the safety of the State, and that is why we support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

I wish to move the following amendment—

I think we made it quite clear to the Minister during the Second Reading that we thought the terms of this paragraph were too wide. We felt that even though we believed the Secretary would act in the interests of the farmers, there would still be the position that a person who wishes to be registered as a broker or as a commission agent might feel that his interests had not been protected, and therefore we feel that a commission agent or a broker should have the right to appeal to the Minister. I feel that the Minister should assist us here because we also believe that the commission agent and the broker are fulfilling important links when it comes to the ordinary marketing of perishable products. We feel that those who act on behalf of the farmers, as brokers or commission agents, should also have their rights protected. For these reasons I move this amendment.

The hon. member rightly pointed out in his Second Reading speech that this clause was framed in rather wide terms. If the secretary were to act under this clause, then the Minister would surely know why he had acted in the way he had. I therefore cannot see any reason why we should insert this proviso here. There may, of course, be reasons other than those usually mentioned in the Act, in the other clauses, why a person is not appointed, and I am prepared to withdraw that part of Clause 6 if he is satisfied with that, and then it will not be necessary to accept the amendment he has moved. I therefore move—

In view of the fact that the Minister himself has proposed the deletion of paragraph (/), I shall, with leave of the Committee, withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the Committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Streicher withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

This clause is very similar to the previous one, but deals with the suspension or cancellation of registration as a broker or as a commission agent. Here the same provision appears in paragraph (g): “he is otherwise not a fit person …” That is tremendously wide. I therefore want to move—

Briefly, as the clause reads at present, it means that the Minister may decide whether to suspend or cancel the certificate of registration of a commission agent or a broker, and it then means that such a person has no opportunity of presenting his case. We feel that the Minister should give such a person the right to submit documents to him to prove that he is in fact a fit person. The Minister’s power is phrased too widely here, and I therefore move this amendment.

Quite a few reasons are set out in this clause why such a person’s registration can be suspended or cancelled. Paragraph (g) reads—

There may be many reasons why the Minister considers that he is otherwise not a fit person, quite apart from the reasons given in the preceding paragraph. It is very difficult to set out to such a person in writing the reasons why you want to refuse or cancel his registration. I, too, realize of course hat the power taken here is very wide. I have taken another look at the powers contained in the Act, and I think the Minister’s powers are reasonably wide enough. I am therefore prepared to withdraw this paragraph if that will satisfy the hon. member, and it will then not be necessary for him to move his amendment. I therefore move—

I accept the Minister’s proposal, and shall then withdraw my amendment with leave of the Committee. It is not every day that one has the experience of meeting a Minister who is prepared to reduce his own powers slightly.

With leave of the Committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Streicher withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that this Bill should be introduced at a time when, owing to droughts, farming conditions in many parts of our country are not normal, because, although the proposed measures also make provision for the rendering of assistance to farmers who find themselves in financial difficulties, the main object of this legislation is to make possible sound economic financing by the State and to place all forms of such financing under the same roof. In this Bill, therefore, one must not expect to find authority to grant subsidies, make grants or allow rebates. Assistance of that kind, which has been so generously provided by the State in emergency conditions in recent years, and which will again be provided under similar circumstances in the future, must not be confused or associated with this Bill.

On the other hand the proposed financing is not intended to interfere with agricultural financing from other sources. The State does not wish to intrude upon the field of the commercial banks and other lending institutions or of the Land Bank. Those sources of credit are essential to the industry and cannot or should not be replaced by financing by the State.

As a matter of fact, if private institutions could fully adapt their financing policy to the particular needs of agriculture it would not be necessary for the State to provide credit facilities to that industry.

The task of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, as embodied in this proposed legislation, lies between two extremes, namely, the subsidization of certain farming undertakings such as soil conservation, water provision, distress relief, and so forth, which is done by various other departments, on the one hand, and investment in agriculture for the purpose of making a profit, on the other hand.

It will be noted that the object of the Bill is to introduce uniform, permanent, purposeful and adequate measures to enable the State to provide financial support to the farmer in times of adversity or to assist the less creditworthy farmer to become independent.

The provision of credit facilities to farmers by the State is by no means a new phenomenon in the South African national economy. On the contrary, only three years after Jan van Riebeeck had landed in this country, such assistance was granted to a farmer in order, by so doing, to promote fanning. Similar assistance was granted subsequently, for example, to the Free Burghers in 1657, to the British Settlers in 1820, and to farmers in the Free State and the Transvaal in 1866 and 1893, respectively.

During the first decade of the twentieth century a keen demand for agricultural credit arose. As there was no particular institution which could supply the demand, farmers were obliged to compete with the mining industry, commerce and secondary industries in obtaining credit from commercial banks, commercial money-lenders and private investors. Agriculture, however, has factors such as the vicissitudes of nature, stock diseases, price fluctuations and so forth to contend with, and transactions are sporadic and subject to seasonal fluctuation, so that it therefore differs from other industries as a sphere of investment; and as a result credit was difficult to obtain.

As the farming industry is basic to the continued existence of any nation, the provision of credit facilities which are adapted to the needs of agriculture is a matter demanding the continual attention of the Government. So we find that between the years 1907 and 1909 the Colonial land banks were semi-State institutions, which in 1912 were joined together to form the present-day Land Bank, which at present, in its sphere, still confines itself exclusively to agricultural financing.

In addition to the Land Bank Act, two other Acts followed upon Union, namely the Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act, 1912, and the Land Settlement Act, 1912, which envisaged various forms of State aid to farmers. The last-mentioned Act led to the establishment of the Department of Lands, and the main object of the legislation was to place suitable farmers on State-owned land and in that way to contribute to the development of the farming industry and to providing a means of livelihood to those farmers.

It was soon found, however, that those measures did not under all circumstances meet the credit requirements of all the various branches of the farming industry, and up to 1935 the Government deemed it necessary to pass no fewer than 35 statutory measures in order to satisfy those requirements. Those measures included the Drought Distress Relief Acts of 1916, 1924 and 1927 and the Farmers’ Special Relief Act, 1931. In the absence of any organization to implement those measures, the Managing Director of the Land Bank was charged with the administration of those measures on behalf of the State, with the assistance of a special staff. State Departments, principally the then Department of Agriculture, were also charged with certain schemes.

The position of having unco-ordinated action on the part of the State was already causing concern at that time because it made for inefficiency and overlapping. Consequently the Government had the position investigated by the Viljoen Commission in 1934, and in consequence of that Commission’s Report Parliament, without there being any dissentient vote, placed the State Advances Recoveries Act and the Farmers’ Assistance Act on the Statute Book in 1935 with the object of gradually bringing about the co-ordination of the agricultural financing activities of the various departments.

The State Advances Recoveries Act provided, inter alia, for the establishment of the State Advances Recoveries Office as a central organization, to which all the duties of the Land Bank in so far as it acted on behalf of the State, were transferred. In addition, it provided for the rendering of financial assistance to farmers in times of abnormal adversity without any new legislation being required therefor, except for providing the necessary funds.

The Government was also convinced that there would continually be deserving farmers who, as a result of economic circumstances, would be forced to leave the farming industry if timeous action could not be taken by the State. To supplement the “State Advances Act” the Farmers’ Assistance Act, 1935, was passed, in terms of which timeous action could be taken to render farmers the necessary assistance to avoid a state of insolvency and, where the burden had become too heavy, to try and place the undertaking concerned on a sound footing again.

Accordingly the administration of that Act was entrusted to the State Advances Office and the Farmers’ Assistance Board was established, with autonomous powers to grant loans from State funds to farmers, against mortgage bonds and against movable property, for the purpose of effecting improvements or purchasing farming requirements, of paying existing claims and of arranging settlements with farmers’ creditors.

During the depression years extensive aid (R 15,400,000) was granted to farmers in that way, but since the war years these forms of State aid have fallen into disuse, partly as a result of more favourable economic conditions.

At that stage there was no talk of preventive assistance which, in times of adversity or scarcity of capital, would prevent the undertaking of any farmer who had not yet become firmly established from deteriorating. Consequently there was an accumulation of problem cases after private lending institutions had begun to curtail the provision of credit to farmers after 1956. Limited funds were available, and the assistance provided by the Farmers’ Assistance Board was confined mainly to arranging extensions of time and buying in essential assets in cases where an estate was administered under the Farmers’ Assistance Act. On 11th December, 1958, however, the Government again announced a scheme for assisting deserving farmers to consolidate debts incurred prior to the date mentioned. The scheme was in operation for six months only—2,711 farmers were assisted and an amount of R20,783,130 was spent.

In 1961 similar schemes to that of 1959 were introduced, namely, in the Cape Province, where farmers had suffered losses as a result of severe droughts and subsequent floods, and in the Riet River irrigation area, where farmers found themselves in difficulties as a result of a shortage of irrigation water. A total of 115 loans was granted, involving an aggregate amount of R1,125,000.

In the light of what happened in 1935 and 1959 the Government came to the conclusion that the object in view was not being achieved by means of the sporadic loan schemes. Accordingly it was decided that with effect from October, 1962, the Farmers’ Assistance Board could consider application from farmers for any form of assistance provided for by the Farmers’ Assistance Act, on a permanent basis.

In terms of the State Advances Act schemes were introduced in particular districts from time to time for making advances to farmers for various purposes, such as the cultivation of cash crops, the preservation of stock, the provision of rations to farm labourers, and so forth. The practice of rendering assistance only when particular areas have experienced set-backs did. however, create problems. It was extremely difficult to devise a fair method of demarcating areas, and once an area had been demarcated, farmers were inclined to accept that everyone in that area was entitled to such assistance.

Another phenomenon, namely uncertain climatic conditions, necessitated the introduction of one or more production loan schemes in particular areas in every year since 1935. In view of that state of affairs the Government decided in September, 1960, that the rendering of assistance for the cultivation of cash crops could be considered on a national and permanent basis and that the application of every farmer who, owing to circumstances beyond his control, did not possess or could not obtain the necessary means to carry on his farming operations, could be considered on the basis of merit.

In addition to the permanent production loan scheme, special schemes were introduced from time to time in cases where an area had been hit by drought or some natural disaster or other and it was necessary to save the livestock or to repair losses.

Continual assistance has therefore been granted under these two Acts, and this kind of financing by the State has played an important part in the endeavour to retain deserving farmers for the industry.

As has been stated, the object of the Land Settlement Act of 1912 was to allot State-owned land to approved applicants in order to establish them as independent agricultural producers. Various amendments have since been made to it in order to meet changed circumstances, and the facilities presently available in terms of that Act are, briefly—

1. (a) the allotment of State-owned land to a settler (farmer) under contract of lease with the option of purchasing;
2. (b) the purchase of land placed under irrigation as a result of Government water works, the development and laying-out of such land and the allotment of holdings thereon to persons who have successfully completed a period of training;
3. (c) the purchase, on the one-tenth contribution system, of private land on behalf of an applicant who owns no or insufficient land.

While a settler is still holding land on lease from the State, the agricultural officers of the Department exercise supervision over his farming operations, but once he has obtained a deed of grant to the land the control falls away and he has to rely on the extension service of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services like any other private farmer.

Although it had become apparent as far back as 1935, during the discussion on the said Bills the administration of which was to be entrusted to State Advances, that co-ordinated financing was contemplated in order to achieve uniformity of policy, that object was not achieved, on the one hand because in the depression years the attention was focused on rehabilitation and in the forties the need for State aid was not so great, and on the other hand because other Departments could grant loans and subsequently transfer the financial responsibility to the State Advances Office.

It was only in course of time that, firstly, it came to be realized that, in view of the nature of the principal function of certain departments and the machinery at their disposal, it was desirable that the functions of financing and recovery should fall under one department and that, secondly, the attempt to co-ordinate gradually gained ground.

In view of the progress made with co-ordinated agricultural financing, and because financing and both technical and economic agricultural guidance are inseparable, the functions of the State Advances Office were placed under the control of a Minister of Agriculture with effect from 1st January, 1962.

The gradual provision of various kinds of State aid to a large section of the farming population creates a particular need for guidance, as the financially weaker farmers need more guidance. However, instead of a separate guidance service being built up in the centralized financing organization, there has been closer and closer co-operation with the Departments of Agriculture in recent years in order to integrate the guidance aspects as closely as possible with the financing endeavours. Thus, for example, a professional officer of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has been appointed to the Farmers’ Assistance Board, extension officers have been co-opted to serve on Farmers’ Assistance Committees, and other officials are, at the request of State Advances, paying special attention to farmers who require or have already obtained State aid.

In view of the foregoing, hon. members will agree with me that, as far as State financing of the farming industry is concerned, coordination is not only necessary, but indispensable. Amendments which have already been made to the Acts administered by State Advances and the Department of Lands, respectively, have helped a great deal in making it possible to render assistance to private farmers and settlers over a wider field.

The rendering of assistance by those two organizations under different measures inevitably leads to overlapping, and when there is no uniformity of action it creates confusion and dissatisfaction on the part of the farmer. In addition, assistance is at present also being rendered by other agricultural departments, in terms of the Water Act and the Soil Conservation Act in respect of boring, irrigation or soil conservation works.

If one takes into account the fact that the State Advances Recoveries Office is already handling approximately 49,000 different accounts, while a further 1,600 and 1,700 still have to be transferred from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Department of Water Affairs, respectively, and the Department of Lands has financed 8,000 tenant settlers, one can form some idea of the extent of the financing functions, and functional efficiency, co-ordination and purposeful action have become matters of cardinal importance.

Accordingly it has been realized that it is essential, firstly, that all the existing agricultural financing activities of the various departments should be joined together in one organization; secondly, that legislation should be passed to consolidate all the measures relating to the provision of credit to farmers (including the rendering of assistance to land-owners as far as soil conservation and water provision are concerned).

In order to satisfy the first-mentioned requirement, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure was established with effect from 1st February, 1966, and the functions of the State Advances Recoveries Office and the Department of Lands have been transferred to the new Department, while the object of the Bill which is now before the House is to provide for the measures envisaged.

The provisions contained in the various clauses will, were necessary, be elucidated in the Committee Stage, but at this stage it is desirable to explain a few principles embodied in the Bill.

In order to make it possible to combine all forms of assistance, it is necessary to repeal a whole series of legislation and to substitute one comprehensive Act therefor. It will be noticed from the schedule that, inter alia, the State Advances Recoveries Act, the Farmers’ Assistance and the Land Settlement Act are being repealed. However, all the best features of those Acts will be re-enacted in the new legislation. An attempt has also been made to draft the provisions in such a way that they will be capable of easier yet more effective implementation.

Provision is of course being made for existing transactions to be concluded in terms of the old legislation, and existing rights are therefore being protected.

The amendments to the Soil Conservation Act and the Water Act relate only to the making of advances by the Department of Agricultural Credit for conservation works and water provision. In so far as the technical aspects and the subsidizing of such works are concerned, the position remains unchanged and they will continue to be dealt with by the departments concerned. As a result of these amendments all credit facilities granted to farmers will therefore be provided by one department.

It will, however, be necessary for the Agricultural Credit Board to frame its policy in such a way that the requirements which have to be fulfilled in order to qualify for the various forms of credit are adapted to each particular case. For example, it will not be possible to lay down the same requirements in the case of a loan for the repayment of debts as in the case of a loan for the construction of soil conservation works. In the latter case I can in fact foresee that no means test will be applied by the Board, as such works are really in the national interest.

The Agricultural Credit Board, which I have already mentioned, will replace the Farmers’ Assistance Board and the Land Board. This Board will consist of not more than ten members and will sit in Pretoria on a full-time basis. All applications for assistance will have to be dealt with by this Board, and consequently it will be necessary to appoint a sufficient number of members to enable the Board to sub-divide itself into committees in order to deal with the large number of applications promptly. Important matters or matters of policy will of course be discussed by the Board in plenary session.

As certain executive powers are being entrusted to the Board, it is necessary that the Chairman or Vice-chairman should be an officer of the Department who will always be available for the signing of protection certificates and other documents.

Unlike the present Land Boards, the Agricultural Credit Board will, of course, not be able to carry out inspections and valuations, and in addition it is deemed highly desirable to have the closest possible liaison with the farmers and to a large extent to entrust the performance of the various duties to the farmers themselves. Accordingly the Bill proposes the establishment of an agricultural credit committee in each area falling under the jurisdiction of a magistrate. Three to five farmers of the district concerned, together with the magistrate as chairman, will constitute a committee. The committee will act mainly in an advisory capacity to the Minister and the Agricultural Credit Board. I wish to give hon. members the assurance that great care will be exercised in selecting members of the committees, and that the main object will be to appoint persons who possess a thorough knowledge of farming matters and who are capable of judging matters purely on merit.

These committees should be able to give a decision as to the merit of every farmer in their respective areas and to make an exact determination of the value of land or other property in those areas.

The Agricultural Credit Board is being authorized to render any form of assistance, within the limits of the policy laid down by the Minister, to any person who carries on or undertakes to carry on farming operations to the satisfaction of the Board. Moreover, in the legislation no special directions are given as to the conditions to be attached to such assistance. It is in fact the intention that in each case the Board should be able to render assistance to a farmer in accordance with his requirements. The determination of the form and the extent of the assistance required in each case is being left exclusively to the discretion of the Board acting on the advice of the agricultural credit committee. The assistance that may be rendered naturally includes the provision of State-owned land or any other farming requirements. Funds for the purchase of private land may, of course, also be made available, and in each case the terms of repayment will have to be decided by the Board. Government policy as embodied in the Land Settlement Act in so far as the allotment of land is concerned is, therefore, being replaced in its entirety. The general object is to endeavour, in the financing effort, to instil a greater sense of responsibility in the farmer receiving assistance.

As a result of the drought conditions during the past few years there are many cases in which, under the present set-up, several loans have been granted to a farmer by the State Advances Recoveries Office. There have been loans for the cultivation of crops, stock fodder loans, assistance loans and so forth. Usually they have different rates of interest, and the accounting in respect of the various loans entails a great deal of unnecessary work. Many of the farmers have fallen behind with their payments, and requests for assistance by way of extension of the period of redemption and so forth are continually being received. In view of the unfavourable climatic conditions extension is of course being granted readily. In the draft legislation, however, it is now being provided that all loans due by a farmer may be consolidated at his request and that the Board may then stipulate new conditions of repayment. That will afford the Board an opportunity of making adjustments to meet the requirements of each debtor. With a view to including old debtors under the provisions of the new Act as soon as possible, it is also being provided that when any debtor applies for assistance in terms of the new Act, it is compulsory that his existing debts be consolidated in the way mentioned.

I have already referred to the fluctuating rate of interest. During the past few years rates of interest have been altered several times and have varied from 4⅞ to 6¼ per cent. Since September, 1965, it has been 61 per cent. If the Government does not subsidize it now, it will increase.

In recent years agricultural organizations have repeatedly made representations for a reduced rate of interest on existing Loans. For understandable reasons rates of interest on State loans cannot be altered arbitrarily from time to time.

In the agricultural industry it is fairly generally recognized that financial institutions are not properly geared for short-term agricultural financing. The necessary adjustment to South Africa’s uncertain climatic conditions requires a flexible policy, a policy which cannot easily be adopted by money-lenders seeking to make profits.

Although the Government has endeavoured to adhere as closely as possible to normal economic principles in financing those farmers who are less well-provided with capital, those principles are sometimes departed from.

Owing to lack of central control there was no uniformity in the past as far as such departures were concerned, with the result that it eventually came to be accepted that if sufficient pressure was brought to bear on the Government, concessions would be granted, irrespective of whether they were reasonable or unreasonable.

The following may be mentioned as examples of the departures mentioned—

1. (a) The provision in the Land Settlement Act that when State-owned land is allotted the rental shall increase from 1 per cent to 4 per cent during the first four years. In addition it was deemed necessary, in order to ensure the success of that type of farmer, to make State-owned land available at unrealistically low prices. There are numerous examples of cases where a holding was sold at a profit of 1,000 per cent and more after ten years;
2. (b) As a result of unfavourable farming conditions the Land Settlement Act was amended to make provision for placing arrear interest and rental in a suspense account, on which no interest was charged;
3. (c) Loans under the Soil Conservation Act are free of interest for the first three years;
4. (d) A subsidy representing two years’ interest was paid on foot-and-mouth disease loans during 1964. while, as a result of drought conditions, a subsidy of one half per cent is payable on State advances and farmers’ assistance loans granted as from 3rd September, 1965.

This policy had many disadvantages and complicated the planning of farming operations to some extent, owing to the fact that it was never possible for the farmer to determine in advance what the policy would be. For that very reason it is felt that, as the Government is contemplating that financing will henceforth take place on an economic basis, but nevertheless wants to make some concession to the farmer who is less well-provided with capital, this concession should be embodied in legislation, so that a debtor to the State may see his obligations in the same light as any other debtor does. The psychological effect it will have on the sense of independence of debtors to the State is important. In future, therefore, there must no longer be any talk of a stigma attaching to State financing.

The fixing of a standard rate of interest for State aid to farmers as envisaged in this Bill must be regarded by the industry as a concession born from the realization that we are here concerned with a basic industry which is subject to many uncertainties. As far as administration is concerned, a standard rate of interest will make possible the consolidation of debts and promote efficiency.

The average rate of interest on all amounts due by farmers to State Advances and allocated since 1935 is 5.07 per cent. The proposed fixed rate of interest of 5 per cent may therefore be regarded as an equitable one.

As is the case at present, both movable and immovable property will be accepted as security. Mortgage bonds, however, will be registered in favour of the State as covering bonds, so that further advances will be possible thereunder and the dispatch of business will be expedited. Loans for the purpose of soil conservation, boring and irrigation works will henceforth be provided against the security of a mortgage bond in the customary order. Up to now liabilities registered after existing mortgage bonds received priority over such bonds and have given rise to dissatisfaction on the part of mortgagees.

Mortgage bonds will be drawn up and registered free of charge, and all transactions in terms of the Act will be exempted from transfer duty, stamp duty and registration fees. That holds great benefits for the farmer who is less well-provided with capital, but is no new principle, as it is already in force under the existing laws.

As under the measures which have applied until now, certain restrictions will be endorsed upon the title-deeds in respect of land when mortgage bonds are registered in order to prevent a farmer from further mortgaging the land without permission, or to prevent its being sold in execution by other creditors or its forming an asset in an insolvent estate. In addition, provision is being made for a perpetual prohibition on the subdivision of such land and of land sold to a farmer by the State, in order to ensure its continued existence as an economic unit. In cases where State-owned land is sold to a farmer ownership in that land will be transferred to him by means of a deed of grant, which will be issued free of charge.

As has been the case up to now, the ownership in movable property serving as security for assistance will be transferred to the State. In order not to hamper the farmer in his operations, powers are being proposed in terms of which the Minister will be able to waive any such rights of ownership either wholly or in part, due regard being had to the amount still due. In the event of a farmer failing to carry out his obligations, movable security may be summarily attached and sold or taken over at valuation, and at the formation of any estate it will not become part of the assets in that estate. These proposed measures, too, contain no new principle and are, to a large extent, for the purpose of protecting the interests of the State and, where necessary, acting expeditiously and preventing losses.

Provision is also being made for calling up mortgage loans and attaching encumbered immovable property without any recourse to a court of law. Upon attachment the sale may be arranged by the sheriff as though a judgment had been obtained in a court. This procedure will eliminate time-consuming legal proceedings as well as legal costs and will ensure that it will be possible to take quick action to prevent properties from being neglected. It is the same procedure as that authorized by the Farmers’ Assistance Act up to now.

Large amounts of Government money are involved in the rendering of assistance, and in this respect, too, it is therefore essential to combat offences. It constitutes an offence if any member of the Board or of a committee is guilty of corruption or bribery, etc., or if some other person bribes or attempts to bribe such a member in the execution of his duties. It also constitutes an offence if in any application any applicant furnishes false information or fails to disclose any assets and/or liabilities, or if any securities are dealt with in an irregular manner. A general penalty provision is being proposed which, as will be noted, lays down a maximum penalty, namely a fine of R1,000 or, in default of payment, imprisonment for a period of five years. Within these limits it is left to the discretion of the court to impose such a penalty as is deemed advisable according to the seriousness of the offence.

The Land Bank will not be affected by this Act, as the general objects of the Land Bank Act are to a large extent the same as those of this Bill, and accordingly it is the intention to avoid all possible clashes in connection with securities and so forth and to promote cooperation, as in the past.

I do not wish to take up hon. members’ time with statistics in connection with farmers who have received financial support from State Advances and the Department of Lands in the past, but I can give you the assurance, Sir, that if the measure of success achieved by those departments in the past is to serve as any criterion, I am convinced that, with this more effective legislation at its disposal, the new department will make an important contribution in respect of the endeavour to retain self-reliant and independent farmers in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the very outset that we on this side will support this legislation and that we welcome it. The position of the farmer in this country is still far from good; as a matter of fact, the position remains bad. Hon. members opposite attribute it mainly to the drought, and even the Minister of Transport told us yesterday that part of his difficulties is also attributable to the drought. There are also other reasons why the farmers find themselves in this position, but I do not want to go into all that now. It is, however, absolutely necessary that special facilities be created for financing the farmers in this country. Loans are necessary for times when farmers are unexpectedly overtaken by difficulties, for example the repair of damage caused by floods, and in times of drought, when they have to obtain loans for fodder as well as crop loans. Those are short-term loans. Loans are also necessary for buying land and stock. These are not really long-term loans, but long-term loans are also necessary to assist farmers who are in difficulties to become independent farmers, who will be able to pay taxes to the State and who will be a greater asset to the country.

As the hon. the Minister said, the Bill is to a large extent a consolidating Bill. The Bill also contains amendments, and many of the amendments being made are in the interest of the farmer and serve to improve the Act. The Bill consolidates the old Farmers’ Assistance Act, the State Advances Recoveries Act, the Land Settlement Act, and so forth, while certain amendments are also being made. All loans will now be included under this Act, and I believe that is a step in the right direction. It facilitates the financing of the farmer generally, and it is a great improvement. Representations for a department of agricultural financing have been made for quite some time now, but generally we have expected something more as far as assistance for the farmer is concerned. The application of the Bill is still somewhat limited. We feel that it is being applied to those whose position has become weak, and that there is still a tendency to exclude too easily those farmers who, in the opinion of the Government, can no longer be assisted. We should like to see the Department taking somewhat greater risks in order to rehabilitate certain farmers who are in difficulties. We do not expect assistance to be given to people who are hopelessly insolvent and who are beyond rehabilitation, but I do think that we should risk a little more in order to help people who still have a slight chance. I have here an interesting article in last month’s Jewish Affairs in connection with the approach to farmers in the old days. I want to quote just one paragraph—

I again want to make the point that we are merely trustees of the land, and that we must take care that it is left to others in an equally good or even better state, and that the State should contribute to ensure that that is done—

We are not asking that that should be done, because the entire economy of agriculture and of the world has changed since, but the approach as far as the farmer is concerned is that even in those times it was felt that the farmers had difficulties and that they should be assisted from time to time. In South Africa it has been our experience all along that farmers who took loans repaid those debts to a very large extent, and we are very proud of the way in which the farmers have repaid their debts. But I just want to repeat that a farmer should be assisted in terms of this Act wherever there is the slightest chance of rehabilitating him.

There is also a tendency to think that the farmer is strong enough and that he does not need help. I realize that if a farmer is quite strong enough to borrow money from the Land Bank or from other financial institutions he should borrow the money from those institutions, and in that case it is not the duty of this Department to help him. But there are often cases where, although the farmers are financially still fairly strong, they cannot get any help from those institutions because the latter are too conservative. Those are the farmers who should be assisted by this Department by means of the necessary loans in order to enable them to continue. With the very high rates of interest we have to-day we also find cases where the farmer is still in a strong position but that his position will become weaker in course of time owing to the high rate of interest he has to pay, so that he will ultimately reach the position where he needs help. I should like the Department to help that farmer before he finds himself in that position. I should like the Department to grant him a loan at 5 per cent interest in order that he may quickly recover before he has become too weak. Rates of interest at 8 to 10 per cent are simply too high for farming purposes. We know that farmers in general receive only about 3 per cent on their capital, and that it is consequently impossible for them to pay those high rates of interest. I plead once again that when people begin to get into difficulties they should be assisted by being granted loans at the lower rate of interest. Naturally we do not expect that loans be made available to well-to-do persons, but only to people who have to be kept on a sound basis in order to enable them to improve their position.

I repeat that we support this Bill. There are certain aspects on which we differ and which we will discuss in the Committee Stage.

Throughout his speech the Minister used the word “financing”. We would prefer the Bill not to be called the Agricultural Credit Bill, but to be called the Agricultural Financing Bill. We should very much like to see that change made. That may mean that the name of the Department has to be changed as well, but we should like to see it changed. Another point is in connection with the composition of the Board, which consists of ten members. We should like four of those members to be appointed by organized agriculture, by the South African Agricultural Union. There are other amendments which will be dealt with by other hon. members, but on the whole we support the Bill.

I want to thank the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) for his fair approach to the Bill, although he did say a few things which are open to dispute, but as a member of the Opposition he is of course compelled to criticize the Government.

The hon. member made a few remarks with which I should like to deal briefly. The first of these was his contention that a larger group of farmers should be enabled to enjoy the benefit of the 5 per cent interest on loans, but he also said that people who are still creditworthy enough to be able to obtain loans from private financial institutions ought not to be assisted by the Department. I think that his approach is the same as ours. Under the measures which are being repealed by this Bill, it has been the practice and the policy of the Government for people who could not obtain credit from private institutions to be assisted by the State. I should like the hon. member to elaborate on the few points which he mentioned would be pursued further at the Committee State, inter alia, the change in the name, and to tell us why he wants to change the name of the Department to that of Agricultural Financing. The name which appears in the Bill, namely, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, is to my mind far more descriptive of the functions which this Department will have to perform in terms of the Bill. I sincerely trust, therefore, that unless the hon. member and his party can advance very good reasons as to why the name should be changed, the Government will leave the name of the Department as it is. The hon. member also mentioned that his party would move an amendment to the effect that in the constitution of the Agricultural Credit Board, four of the members of the board should be appointed by the South African Agricultural Union. I should like to tell the hon. member that this board, as it is proposed to be constituted in terms of the Bill, is a board which is completely divorced from politics. It is a board which will be composed of the best brains the country has to offer in the agricultural sphere. Once that concession is made to the South African Agricultural Union—and we know what the United Party are like—an organization will immediately be set up in the ranks of every farmers’ association in order to pack the executives, including those of the provincial organizations and the central organization, with political interests. We have had experience of the machinations of these people because we had the same thing happen in the Wool Board. [Interjections.]

I welcome this Bill most heartily and I am particularly grateful that it has been the present Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure who has been able to introduce this Bill. This Minister and the present Deputy Minister have over the past years been particularly active in working for the welfare of that group of farmers which is going to be benefited in terms of this Bill. I want to congratulate them on this fine piece of work which they have submitted to the House, a piece of work which is actually the culmination of the ideal which they have set themselves. The hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech that this Bill in actual fact replaced a number of existing laws and provisions in other laws which were now being repealed. He mentioned the State Advances Recoveries Act, 1935, the Farmers’ Assistance Act, 1935, the Land Settlement Act of 1956 and their predecessors. They are all now being replaced by this Bill. The laws which are now being repealed give us some idea of what has happened in the agricultural industry in this country, how the industry has developed, the difficulties which have had to be combated over the years and the way in which natural disasters have had to be overcome. The legislation passed by various governments from time to time gives us a very clear picture of the development that has taken place. We see too how the agricultural industry has steadily become more complicated and more important. We see too that when from time to time the industry has been faced with challenges, those challenges have consistently been met by the farmers themselves, in spite of the setbacks they have suffered, thanks to the assistance offered them by governments from time to time.

There have been great developments in the sphere of agriculture. When looking at the statistics we see that from 1937 to 1957 the number of tractors increased from 6,000 to 100,000. We note, therefore, not only that there has been large-scale development but that the principle of mechanization has also been introduced into South Africa just as it has been applied throughout the world from time to time. But we know too that mechanization has its drawbacks and that the farmer who is not strong financially, the beginner, has become more vulnerable as a result of mechanization and as a result of the more intricate problems facing agriculture. We see too that the farmer who is less strong financially, and the beginner, are beginning to experience more and more difficulty as far as their working capital is concerned. These are primarily the people who must of necessity be provided with working capital because otherwise they simply cannot remain on the land and cannot survive as primary producers. We find in the Bill that these needs are well provided for. We see that provision is made for short-term, mediumterm and long-term credit. These provisions have also been applied by various laws in the past.

In this regard we find that from time to time assistance was granted to the beginner and the farmer who is less strong financially, assistance as far as the provision of short-term credit is concerned; that, in later years, they were continually assisted by means of crop loans, loans to enable them to maintain their stock and loans to enable them to combat disasters such as outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease when immediate short-term assistance was necessary and when that assistance could not be obtained from other institutions. We find that medium-term credit has been made available for farm development, for the purchase of stock and equipment and for the consolidation of debt. We also find that provision is being made in this legislation for long-term credit so that assistance may be made available for the purchase of land. Even greater provision is now being made for making long-term credit available. Besides providing for these various terms of credit, the Bill also provides for subsidies on and loans for soil conservation works, boreholes and other irrigation works. These loans will also be made available by this Department. Because this legislation is to a large extent consolidating, it consolidates all the various forms of assistance that can be obtained and this assistance will now be made available through one Department. This fact is greatly to the advantage not only of the various Departments which have now been relieved of this responsibility but also of those who will have to make use of that assistance. But there is far more to this legislation than consolidation and centralization. I see in this Bill the expansion of a system of agricultural financing which is most probably the only one of its kind in the world and which, we hope, will operate very effectively.

May I just ask an innocent little question? Why do you use the expression “agricultural financing” instead of “credit provision”?

The question is not as innocent as the hon. member would have us believe. I use the expression “agricultural financing” because agricultural financing is being applied together with other forms of credit. We are not dealing here simply with the narrower connotation of agricultural financing; we are dealing with a Department of agricultural credit. This Department will also do financing, but hon. members opposite want to narrow down and limit the content of this Bill by giving it a name which is not fully descriptive of its functions.

This Bill has its advantages; it provides the opportunity for a new approach to agricultural financing. There are in particular two very characteristic features in this Bill which I wish to praise very highly. The first is that the Agricultural Credit Board which will be established in terms of this legislation will, with the permission and approval of the Minister, have a virtually free hand, irrespective of circumstances and irrespective of requirements, to make available any kind of financial assistance to the fanner who needs that assistance. Whatever the disaster which has befallen him, whatever his requirements may be, this board will have a free hand to assist him. This board has a free hand, according to the merits of every applicant, to decide upon the size of land, the value of land and the purchase price of land. The board itself will decide in this regard; these provisions are not laid down by way of legislation. This is a very important provision and it is also a very important benefit. This legislation contains very great powers which represent a very important step forward as far as agricultural financing on the part of the State is concerned. But there is a second principle which is contained in this Bill and that is that no legal restrictions are imposed on the applicant, upon the person to whom assistance will be given. The applicant who receives assistance has a free hand to proceed with his free undertaking according to his likes. He is not compelled to comply with certain legal provisions which are actually laid down as conditions before he can obtain assistance. He has the opportunity to develop his own sense of responsibility but he is also tested to see whether he really does qualify for that assistance and whether he will qualify for further assistance if he needs it. Everything depends upon the applicant. It does not depend upon officials who tell him what he has to do and how he should farm. Because this Bill also repeals the Land Settlement Act and because land will also be allocated to applicants on more densely populated settlements under the Land Settlement Act, I should like to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister: As policy will be formulated on the basis of this legislation, I want to ask that a great deal of freedom should also be given to settlers who are placed on more densely populated settlements. As the position is to-day, a settler becomes a probationary lessee and after seven years—formerly ten years—he may be relieved of that provision. But when that settler is placed on land as a probationary lessee, he does not know what he will one day have to pay for that land when it becomes his. He is simply told when he is settled there as a probationary lessee that he has to place a certain number of morgen under one crop and a certain number of morgen under another crop. He farms strictly according to instructions. He simply cannot use his own initiative. I do not want to say that in terms of this legislation the land should summarily be sold to this type of person, but I feel that leases should be entered into with the applicants. If an applicant is not successful, it must then be possible simply to remove him once the period of his lease has expired. But when applicants are placed there as lessees, they must at least be told what is expected of them and what they will have to pay once their leases have expired and they have the right to buy. I hope that the authorities will think along these lines. It is of course necessary in a case of this nature, and also in any case in which a farmer receives credit from the State in any form, that the farmer should co-operate as closely as possible with the officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I welcome the fact that this is not laid down as a condition in the Bill but that it is left to the applicant himself to decide. If he is not prepared to make use of that technical advice, if he thinks that he is clever enough, then he will eventually find that he is the victim and that he has ruined his own future because of his attitude. I think that this is a good test, and perhaps, a better one, in order to discover whether an applicant on a more densely populated settlement will in this way qualify for the eventual allocation of land and whether a person who is receiving assistance cannot perhaps be assisted further.

This Bill makes provision for working capital for the small-scale farmer who would otherwise not be able to obtain it—the person who does not have the capital to provide his daily needs under certain circumstances. It is also important that every person, no matter how small the scale of his farming operations may be, no matter how much in need he may be, should have the necessary capital for development and improvement, otherwise he simply cannot make a success of his farming operations. This Bill also makes it possible for this Department, through the medium of the Agricultural Credit Board, to render assistance in this respect. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) that persons who are not solvent, persons who cannot obtain credit from other financial institutions, should be able to approach the State. But it is also important—and it may become even more important in the future—that the private financial institutions which have to a very large extent assisted with the financing of the farmer in the past should continue to do so. Indeed, it is of national importance that they should continue to do so. It is necessary that the State should on its part try to do everything it can to assist the financially weak farmer, the beginner, so as to enable him to become a strong and independent farmer, and that is what this legislation has in mind.

Mr. Speaker, the future will make ever-increasing demands upon the agricultural industry in South Africa. In order to meet the challenges which will confront the agricultural industry it is necessary for the agricultural industry to be economically strong; for every farmer to be as strong as possible economically and financially. This will become possible once this legislation has been placed on the Statute Book, and that is why I so welcome this Bill. But there is another advantage inherent in this Bill. It may also to a very large extent accelerate the process of applying for assistance for the purchase of land by the elimination of quite a number of stages which had to be passed through in terms of the Land Settlement Act. I want to say how grateful I am for the fact that in this Bill provision is being made for a fixed interest rate of 5 per cent. Not only will this provision be of great assistance to applicants who are going to make use of it but it will certainly help to bring about stability in the agricultural industry. Not only will it assist in bringing about stability as far as the provision of credit is concerned but it will also assist in eliminating unnecessary speculation. I want to express my thanks for this Bill, which we have looked forward to for so long, and I should like to give it my blessing.

I looked around the House a little while ago and I noticed that there were only 27 members of the governing party in the House. This represents something under 20 per cent of their membership in this House, and I think it reflects the importance which Government members attach to agriculture in this country.

I am very glad to hear the thoughts of the hon. member for Winburg that a larger group of farmers than the numbers which a cursory glance at this Bill would seem to indicate, will be helped under this Bill. I sincerely hope that he is right because, as we see it from this side of the House, the assistance which is promised is unfortunately to a very small section of the farming community. Dealing further with what the hon. member for Winburg has said, particularly with regard to our contention that this department should be referred to as a department of agricultural finance, and not as a department of agricultural credit. I would like to state that this is the wish of organized agriculture: Organized agriculture asked for a department of finance, not a department of credit. Let me say further that the reaction amongst certain sections of the farming community has been that the word “credit” implies a slur on that community; furthermore, that the word “credit” leaves in the minds of the city-dwellers in particular an impression that this is one more instance which supports their mistaken belief that the farmer is being nursed by the Government; that here is a department which is prepared to grant virtually unlimited credit to farmers. I myself do not see in this Bill any mention of credit being advanced to farmers, not in the generally accepted sense of the term. I think you will have noticed, Sir. from the speech of the hon. member for Winburg that he referred continually to agricultural finance (“landboufinansiering”).

Further dealing with the points that he raised in answer to the last speaker who spoke from this side on the question of four members of the central board being nominated by the South African Agricultural Union let me say that we feel most strongly about this point. We feel that organized agriculture must be represented on this board as a body, not merely by people appointed by the hon. the Minister. We feel that too much responsibility is vested in the Minister and that his powers are too wide in this respect. I would like to repeat that organized agriculture must be represented not only on that body but also on the regional committees which it is anticipated will be established. However, I will deal with that later on.

The hon. member for Winburg dealt with developments which have taken place in agriculture in the last few years and I agree with him that agriculture has progressed as an industry, but I disagree with him when he says that that is on account of legislation and assistance by this Government. During the course of the general election I got into my hands some propaganda issued by the Nationalist Party where they blamed certain things that had happened in this country on the United Party and the United Party Government and where they pointed out the very many wonderful things that had been done by this Government. On every page of that pamphlet, with the exception of one, we found something to discredit that story, that page was the one page which showed a farmer and said that agriculture in South Africa had developed and had developed on account of the initiative and drive of the farmers. With that statement we have no quarrel at all. You will note, Sir, that there was no claim to assistance given by the Government.

The hon. member for Winburg also mentioned that the purpose of this Bill was to consolidate into one Act all previous legislation. We accept that and we are very pleased that this is taking place. However, we do hope that this Bill is going to help to obviate what has happened so often in the past and what has caused the failure of the Soil and Water Conservation Acts as applied in this country. We hope that this consolidation is going to cut the red tape which has delayed the approval of assistance to the farmers.

Sir, for many years this side of the House warned and advised the Government that farming in South Africa was a sick industry. We warned them that the farmers were not sharing in the boom. We warned them that the Government’s policy of price manipulation, their talk of supply and demand fixing prices, had resulted in a large section of the farming community losing faith in the Government. We have shown that the Government has not only failed to protect the farmers, but I think that a good case has been made in the past that the farmer has been deliberately sacrificed by this Government on the altar of keeping the cost of living down, thereby attempting to catch votes in the larger urban centres. This side of the House has pointed out that the fact that over 30,000 farmers have left the land in the past 15 years went to prove this. I must say, Sir, that I reject categorically the fatuous explanation given by the hon. the Minister in this House on Tuesday during the discussion on a private member’s motion that many farmers—I think he said “more farmers”, but unfortunately I have not been able to get a copy of his speech—left the land during good times and that this was brought about by the richer, stronger and more efficient neighbours buying them out. I want to ask you, Sir, and this House: When have the farmers had good times in the past 15 years?

On what Bill are you making this speech?

Whenever this side of the House has pointed out the shortcomings of this Government, the Government has always asked us for the answers to these problems. These answers have been given by our Leader and by other members at various times. We now find that this Bill is being introduced. It has taken the Government nearly eight years to produce this Bill. They had their study group in 1958 and I believe that the Minister has had the report of that group in his hands for five years. We looked forward with the anticipation to the introduction of this Bill but what have we got? We have merely got a consolidation of existing legislation, which was inadequate in the first place, with a few amendments and with some of our suggestions for the solution of the problems, incorporated in the Bill, not that I oppose the consolidation of this legislation; it is a good thing, but once again, this Government has not gone far enough in certain aspects of assistance to farmers. Its aim is to give financial aid to farmers who cannot get it from other sources, that is to say, the commercial banks and the Land Bank. This is what we have been told. We have further been told that this Bill aims to help the weaker farmer but not the uneconomic farmer. With this principle we do not disagree; we accept it. We have been told further that this new department will grant loans of up to 100 per cent of their valuation of the property of the applicant, i.e. both movable and immovable. Sir, we sincerely hope that this valuation will be at a higher rate than that which is applied by the Land Bank. We have been told that this Bill will provide for the consolidation of the debts of the applicant to the State and to others, and in addition will allow for advances for the purchase of fertilizer, seeds and other necessities. However, a consideration of the terms of the Bill seems to indicate that it only helps farmers who are on the point of going insolvent. That is the point that I want to stress. The impression we get is that only the farmers who are on the point of bankruptcy are the ones who are going to be helped.

Where do you see that in the Bill?

Is that not so?

You should know better than that.

The farmer can only get assistance after he has made over all his assets, both movable and immovable to the State. It is accepted that the rich farmers, those farmers who have assets, those who are established, can get credit facilities; they can go to the commercial banks or to the Land Bank. In terms of this Bill it appears that the farmer who is almost down and out can also get assistance—from this agricultural credit board—but there are many farmers in-between, and those farmers in-between, I submit, are the backbone of the farming industry in South Africa to-day. They are the ones who are carrying the industry, not the big operators and not the man who is on the point of going insolvent. It is those people whom we on this side would like to see helped in terms of this Bill, and unfortunately, I cannot see any provision for them in this Bill. This Bill should, but does not, help the farmer who really needs assistance, who should be helped at the stage when he is still solvent, but in need of ready cash for development. We cannot see that this Bill makes provision for assistance to the man who has progressed to the point where he will become an asset to his country. It is only when he gets to the point where he becomes a liability that the Minister, or the board, can grant him assistance. As I read this Bill, he can only get assistance when he is no longer an asset, and becomes a liability. I think this House is agreed that the farmer is a most important individual and that the farming industry is most important to the well-being and the economy of this country. [Interjections.] Or shall I say that we on this side of the House are agreed that the farmer is an important man. Is this Bill an incentive to him to become more efficient and more economically stable? That is the question I wish to ask hon. members opposite. Is it an incentive to the farmer to become more efficient and economically stable? I submit that the effect of this Bill on the farmer who is battling, but still viable, the farmer who is not yet on the point of insolvency, the man who is battling to make ends meet and at the same time to develop his farm, is not to encourage him to work harder, but rather to encourage him to let things slide and to degenerate to the point where he can qualify, in terms of this Bill, for assistance from this new department.

That is nonsense.

Only then is the Minister or the board empowered by this Bill to step in and to help him out of his troubles—after he has made over to the State—I want to stress this point—all his assets, both movable and immovable. Is there really any incentive for the weaker farmer here? Sir, I have not found it in this Bill at all. Is there any encouragement in this Bill for the farming community as a whole? Once again, Sir, I have not found it. There may be a certain amount of encouragement, but once again this Government has come with too little too late and it took the effect of this disastrous drought to shake this Government to the point where they are doing even this little bit for the farming community.

I want to refer particularly to Clause 6 (1) of the Bill. Clause 6 (1) reads—

I would sincerely ask the Minister to give consideration to the question of whether these committees should not be established as a fact in every magisterial district. I fail to see why the clause should provide that the Minister “may” establish a committee if he requires it. Surely every district where there will be applications for assistance, would require a committee to investigate the applicant’s circumstances.

Then I want to go further on the point which I mentioned earlier and that is the question of representation of organized agriculture on the central board and on these committees. I want to ask the Minister to consider the proposition that the committee appointed in terms of Clause 6 (2) should have a nominee of the farmers’ association or of the agricultural society in that district serving on it.

Clause 10 (1) reads “that subject to the directions of the Minister the board may, on application by any White person who carries on or undertakes to carry on farming operations to the satisfaction of the board, render assistance to such person”. Is it the intention under this clause to give assistance to people who are not engaged on farming but now express a wish to enter the farming industry to become farmers? Another point that I wish to raise is that in both Clauses 10 and 11 reference is made to a White person. They refer to assistance rendered by the board and by the Minister respectively to a White person. We were told that this was a consolidating and amending Bill. I should like the hon. Minister to tell us why the word “White” was inserted, as I do not find any restriction whatsoever in either the Loan Settlement Act or the Farmers’ Assistance Act. In regard to Clause 11 (b), is it not the intention of the Minister to allow applicants to consolidate debts to co-operatives, seed supply firms, machinery supply firms, etc.? Or is it the intention to allow consolidation of debts owing only to the State?

There are other points which have not been mentioned and to which I can find no reference in the Bill. In the first place, for how long will any advances in terms of this Bill stand? Will there be any limitation to this period? Then there is another very important point. Will the successful applicants be required to make capital redemption payments periodically or will they only be required to pay interest annually and to repay the final amount only at the end of the term of the loan?

In regard to Clause 39 (a), does this mean that the hon. the Minister intends at last to take the advice of our hon. Leader and write off certain debts owed by certain farmers to the Government in order to enable them to find their feet again?

You are a novice.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion let me say that I do accept the principle of this Bill. Unfortunately, it is the best that we can expect from this Government. We on this side regret that it does not go far enough, that it has come too late and that it offers too litle.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with other new members in thanking you sincerely for the hospitable and kind treatment I have received here as a newcomer. To make one’s maiden speech in this House is in itself a nerve-racking crisis, but I feel as though I will be subjected to a double ordeal owing to the fact that my most important voter is the person who represented Pietersburg for the very first time, the person who represented Pietersburg for 41 years without a break and who, from the nature of the case, is possibly the most critical and eminent judge of Parliamentary speeches. He is not hundreds of miles from here; on the contrary, he is very close at hand. That makes my position somewhat difficult, but out of the depths of the dire straits in which I find myself I should like to express my sincere gratitude as well as that of my constituency to him for what he has done and is still doing for the inhabitants of Pietersburg in particular, as well as for our country and our people in general. Mr. Speaker, I am of course referring, with great respect, to the President of the Other Place, the Honourable Mr. Tom Naude.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before this House at the moment marks the beginning of a new dispensation in certain respects for the farmer of to-day and for the farmer of to-morrow. On behalf of my voters I can only express my gratitude to the Government for this magnificent consolidatory effort, which, in fact, represents a departure from the old practices. I think that I can without any hesitation describe this proposed legislation as modernizing the method of extending credit facilities to the farmer, as well as providing a more streamlined and efficient channel for the purposes of administration and service. To me Clause 10 of the Bill is of cardinal importance, because it gives the Minister more freedom to formulate and adopt his policy according to the demands of the time and according to the demands of the different areas without having to come to this House for enabling legislation again and again. The flexibility and the elasticity of the farming industry in all its ramifications and facets may now be encouraged on a basis of merit, which is essential for maintaining our farming industry at an economic level.

Another aspect which makes one feel deeply grateful is the provision dealing with the rate of interest, which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Winburg. That will contribute towards greater stability in our agricultural economy, in addition to serving as an incentive for people who intend to go farming. It is gratifying that Part III, which deals with compromises with debtors, is also included in this Bill, because it will greatly facilitate the handling and the solving of problems of this kind by the same Department, especially in times of distress. As a result of this kind of assistance the farmer now knows that he is free to carry on his operations undisturbed, in the sure knowledge that he is never standing quite alone, but that he will always enjoy the protection of the State under this legislation. Part III represents the channel through which the economic burdens caused by the drought are spread over all the sectors of the economy of the country. These provisions also give the farmer the assurance that he will be protected against exploitation by others should he become the victim of various natural disasters.

I now want to deal with a more human aspect of the Bill. The Minister has said that there will be no stigma attached to any farmer’s obtaining assistance under this Bill. I should like to associate myself with that statement. Magistrates will naturally play an important part in the administration of this proposed legislation. As everybody knows, a magistrate’s office is a very cold and impersonal place to visit. For that reason I should like to ask the Minister whether he will see to it that magistrates are given instructions to provide proper waiting-rooms at magistrate’s offices. Many people will have to travel long distances for interviews with the area committees, and I believe that all of us would like to see these people welcomed in a friendly manner and that they will be made comfortable while waiting for their interviews.

Mr. Speaker, for the second time I have the privilege of responding to a maiden speech, namely that of the hon. member for Pietersburg. I should like to congratulate him on his speech. He said that he was speaking from the depths of anxiety, but he did reasonably well. That was his first speech, however; in his next speech he will speak from the depths of misery. We want to offer him our sincere congratulations, and we hope that he will be a worthy successor to his predecessor, for whom we had and still have the greatest respect.

Mr. Speaker, to return to this legislation, this Bill, as the Minister rightly said, is a consolidation of existing legislation. It is not much more, and it is not much less. It does not contain many clauses that are not contained in existing legislation. It does in fact contain a fixed rate of interest which is lower than some rates of interest which have been charged in the past, and higher than others. I want to say, however, that this Bill is so much less than we expected. It is so much less than we hoped for. As a consolidation of existing legislation its approach is correct, but we had hoped for agricultural financing in the sense of that for which we have always pleaded in this House, namely that the farmer who is still credit-worthy but who is experiencing difficulties, should be granted financial facilities. Under the present circumstances there are many of these. I shall shortly come to individual cases without mentioning names.

What does the hon. member mean by “credit-worthy”?

I have already told the hon. the Minister that I shall give examples of that. If he wants to know that now, I shall tell him now. If a person has a mortgage bond which is so big that the Land Bank is not prepared to take it over, but which is still an economic bond, and in addition that person has a considerable overdraft at the bank as a result of fodder loans or the like, and the bank tells him that if he wants further credit the bank will be compelled to take a general mortgage on his possessions, that person is still creditworthy. He is still a credit-worthy person as long as he has assets to offer as security. That is the kind of person who is already experiencing great hardships. He experiences hardships as a result of the high rates of interests, and will experience even more hardships as a result of the fact that he will have to give up these facilities so that he will no longer have the use of the assets he can give us security. His farming activities then become more and more difficult. The Minister wanted an example of credit-worthiness. I hope I have now given him that. I want to repeat that this Bill is so much less than we expected, because we had hoped that it would provide for that category of persons as regards financing. The farmers need that as a result of the high rates of interest and the demands that money-lenders can impose upon those persons who have overdrafts and who experience the utmost difficulties to finance themselves under present-day circumstances. Surely the farming members on the opposite side of the House know that there are numerous people of that kind at present, who find it hard to make ends meet. Those are the people for whom we have pleaded and for whom we want to plead. We hope that some day, if not in terms of this Bill then without it, there will be a credit corporation or a financing corporation—I have repeatedly used the term “agricultural financing corporation” in this House—designed on the basis of several that we know of in other countries. We hope that there will be an agricultural financing corporation that will provide money to farmers at a rate of interest which is lower than the usual.

Mr. Speaker, as far as our Ministers are concerned, our agriculture is particularly unfortunate. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister are sitting one right behind the other. If one criticizes legislation or if one tries to be helpful by suggesting amendments of that legislation, one of them is continually interrupting one and the other makes conversation, and each can wear the cap that fits. [Interjections.] That is how unfortunate agriculture is. I would expect the hon. the Minister to have the courtesy of so many of his colleagues in the Cabinet, to remain seated to the end and to listen to what one says, as long as one is not insulting, and then to reply. And while I am dealing with that, Mr. Speaker, I want to digress for a moment. Yesterday the hon. the Minister accused me of having said certain things in another speech. The impression was created that I am a liar. I now challenge him to read my Hansard. I said that we had received financial and State assistance by way of fodder loans, gifts made to us, Railway subsidies, etc. I listed them and I said that it was the subsidies the farmers did not want, because they want to be self-supporting. The farmer wants to be an independent man, and wants a method by which he can finance himself. I hope the hon. the Minister will not be guilty of that kind of thing again.

I want to repeat that this is not the kind of legislation we wanted. We hoped that we would receive legislation that could provide financing of a different nature. We did not get that. We welcome this Bill and we support it because it is a consolidation of other legislation. The Bill also contains provisions that we welcome, but then there are provisions that we want to discuss. The hon. the Minister asked me just now what was “credit-worthy”. I should like to give examples of that. For example, a person owns, according to the current market value, fixed property to the value of R100,000. He has mortgage bond of R50,000. He has overdrafts at the bank to the value of R10,000. His sundry debts at corporations and shops amount to R5,000. Such a person will experience the utmost difficulty in having his debits taken over by the Land Bank. As a result of the Land Bank’s assessment and its basis of the 80 per cent allocation on that assessment, that person will experience the greatest difficulties. But if he is still creditworthy by virtue of his moveable assets or stock, or the like, that offers adequate security to the banks and other loan concerns. The money-lenders will grant him a loan to pay his shop accounts. The Minister may correct me when he gives his reply at a later stage, but such a person will then find it difficult to get assistance from this agricultural credit organization.

Why?

I shall give another example. Because a person is creditworthy, he can get money elsewhere. The Minister himself said that in his introduction. I want to take the example of a person who bought his land for R100,000 ten years ago. He had, for example, a Land Bank mortgage Bond of R40,000 on that land. Supposing, for example, he has undertaken tremendous water conservation development works on that farm, and eight years later his loan from the Land Bank has increased to R60,000 as a result of the appreciation of the property. If he then incurs debts as a result of droughts, fodder, accounts, etc., he will not be assisted any further by the Land Bank. He will also find it difficult to be assisted, if he is still credit-worthy enough by virtue of his moveable assets, and to obtain further facilities to pay his accounts. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to point out that it was in these categories that we had hoped that it would be possible to assist the people. These are the farmers who are the best and the greatest assets to the country. It is only the man who undertakes the exploitation and development of the land, and who does not sit still and rob the land, who is an asset to the country. And he is the man we want to help, but he is also the man who gets into difficulties so readily because he undertakes these works.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to dwell on the constitution of the board for a moment. I just want to say that I reject the allegation by the hon. member for Winburg with the contempt it merits. He accused this side of the House of trying to drag in politics as soon as an attempt is made to put farmers on the boards, and of trying to change the people on those boards in such a way that its own members can serve on them. That is an accusation that only a man who lives in a glass house and sits on a pedestal to boot, would have dared to make. He knows what history has taught us. We know who the chairmen of those boards are and how they are constituted. We know how many members of this side of the House have fallen by the wayside lately, people whom we know particularly well and who gave very good service. But I shall go further than that. We know of the support that a certain gentleman caller Brown received from the ranks from that side of the House when he was berating eminent Afrikaners. We have seen these things happen on many boards. That is the very last allegation that can be brought against this side of the House. I think it is essential, not only as regards this board, but also as regards the other boards for which the necessary legislation is still to be introduced—and we shall make this plea repeatedly—that organized agriculture, which is only too closely affected by this legislation and for whose benefit it is being introduced, should be granted direct representation on the board. It should not simply be left to the Minister to appoint whom he likes.

The Bill provides for six farmers.

No, anything but. Provision is made for those farmers in respect of the district credit committees. As regards this board, no provision is made for representation by persons nominated by the South African Agricultural Union. I maintain that the mother body of the organization should have the right to nominate persons for membership of this board. In the Committee Stage we shall come back to this point, but because it affects the principle of the Bill and its implementation, I mention it now. I have mentioned the district committees, on which there shall be two members resident within the magisterial district and involved in agriculture. Even here we envisage great problems. We know what happened to the water conservation works, and how often it is difficult to get farming members on these local committees. We know that in many cases it was not the progressive farmer who served on the committee, but the others. Here we are dealing with a committee; a tribunal which has to make recommendations as regards applications. Here I anticipate the possibility of great difficulties. I do not know what to suggest to solve that problem. The legislation tries its best to provide for the representation of the farmer on the district committees. We anticipate great problems as regards the quality of persons who will serve on those committees. I want to repeat what has already been said in connection with interest, but in a different respect.

Who is making the most propaganda and objecting the most to the farming members serving on the Maize Board?

Mr. Speaker, I knew the hon. member for Aliwal would take so long to wake up. I said that at least quarter of an hour ago. His contribution in this House is of such a nature that he takes longer than a quarter of an hour to wake up at all. To come back to the interest—the interest is fixed here at 5 per cent. Some existing loans carry considerably lower rates of interest, and some higher rates. If I have interpreted the Bill correctly, there are methods by which a person who has a loan carrying interest of more than 5 per cent can have that rate of interest changed to 5 per cent by means of a renewed application, if he gets into difficulties. Our problem is that it will be necessary for a person who has a loan from the State or from the agricultural credit organization, or from the Department of State Advances, to apply to have a loan carrying interest in excess of 5 per cent, reduced to an interest rate of 5 per cent. We want to make the representation that all loans in terms of the legislation should carry a maximum rate of interest of 5 per cent. We lend our support to this Bill, and we hope it will be possible for the Minister to indicate in the course of this debate whether he will try to the best of his ability to extend the scope of the legislation as regards financing.

Mr. Speaker, before coming to the Bill which is before the House I want to return to the trend of the debate as it is being conducted by the Opposition. In the first place we had the hon. member for Gardens who, in his wholly calm and collected manner which is familiar to us, put his case neatly and well. He also, for quite understandable reasons, gave the support of his side of the House to this legislation. After that he said that there are certain points which they would like to settle or take a closer look at in the Committee Stage. After that the level of the debate dropped somewhat and in this regard I come now to the speech made by the hon. young member for Pietermaritzburg District. We do not blame the hon. member for lowering the level of this debate somewhat, but what we do want to do is to blame his Leader and the United Party Whips for allowing him to abuse the courtesy of the Chair by discussing something outside the purview of that which he really ought to have said in this debate. I want to point out to this hon. member that he, as other speakers have said previously in another debate, saw a lion along the road. He came forward here with hypothetical questions and hypothetical problems, problems which he allegedly foresaw and for which no provision had supposedly been made in this measure. Inter alia, he maintained that this was a golden opportunity for the Government to write off certain debts of “certain farmers”. This is a very fine idea and is probably also a well-intended one. We also assume that in the place where the hon. member comes from it would be regarded as being a very good suggestion. But the hon. member failed to define who these “certain farmers” would be. Under what circumstances, of what category of farmer and what debts would have to be written off? It is not fair for the hon. member to make such a general statement without motivating it and thereby affording the hon. the Minister an opportunity to reply to it. Nevertheless we want to deal very gently with this young member and we also wish him everything of the best.

I come now to the hon. member for East London (City). This hon. member is always setting himself up, and we accept this, as a very good friend of organized agriculture. The hon. member is aware that the Agricultural Advisory Council, and through it organized agriculture in the Republic has given this measure its blessing. All the spectres which the hon. member saw and all the hypothetical postulates which he made, simply do not exist and where they do still exist, there is nothing in the existing legislation to prevent assistance from being rendered. There is no disqualification in this measure, as it reads at present, which makes it impossible to assist those people. It is generally known that the Northern Transvaal is being more heavily afflicted at present than any other part of the country. Without trying to make political capital out of that fact, I can mention numerous cases similar to those mentioned by the hon. member as cases whose needs have already been filled under the old dispensation. In this legislation which we are now discussing it is in fact being made even easier for the Government to meet cases of this nature.

The hon. member also tried to make out a case in favour of the argument that it is essential that organized agriculture should have a say in the appointment of part at least of the members of the Agricultural Credit Board. I think it is unfair of the hon. member to ask that. Other United Party members raised a similar argument but I do not think it is fair to demand a say in the appointment of those members. We still have to take into account the fact that if that right is promised to the South African Agricultural Union, other bodies who also serve the farmers will come forward with the claim that they must be dealt with in the same way. I can mention dozens of these organizations. Where will we end up eventually? Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member failed in his duty by neglecting to thank the Minister for what he has already done to consult organized agriculture in regard to the appointment of district committees. In this respect organized agriculture has acquired a right which it has never had in the past before. We do not begrudge organized agriculture this right. It is typical of the United Party, however, that as soon as some concession or other is made, as soon as there is any gesture from this side of the House, it is interpreted as a weakness. The fact of the matter is that the United Party members, as they are sitting here, are very unsatisfied people. Their attitude here does not interpret the attitude of the average United Party supporter outside this House. I am convinced of that because I come from a constituency where things are going very badly and where there are many United Party supporters who welcome this measure in its present form. However, the same cannot be said of United Party members in this House because, as always, they are trying here to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds by, on the one hand welcoming the measure, while on the other they see a wealth of loopholes in it.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, our time is limited and that is why I want to make haste and confine myself to the legislation at present before this House. The fact that this legislation is before this House to-day, is a memor able day for agriculture in South Africa. For very many years many people have been doing a great deal of work in connection with this matter. But what to me is even more significant than the content of this act as such is the fact that we are now, for the first time, linking the same Minister to the soil as well as to the produce from the soil. Accordingly the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing shall in future accept responsibility for agriculture to a greater extent, in this respect that he will also in future be responsible to the soil. In the past this co-ordination was lacking and that, in my opinion, was a flaw. There was not that co-ordination which makes it possible to relate the soil with the product which one takes out of it, its marketing and the price structure. When we approach these things to-day I want to ask the House to view the matter in a broad perspective.

Judged according to international standards the Republic of South Africa is not an agricultural country in the true sense of the word, and that is so because agriculture here has to contend with very unfavourable circumstances. The fact that this is so speaks volumes for the farmer of South Africa and what he has been able to achieve over the past 300 years in spite of these unfavourable circumstances. We must not forget that agriculture in the northern provinces is probably only 50 years old, for at the beginning of this century everything which agriculture had achieved at that stage was razed to the ground through circumstances which we do not want to discuss now. Nevertheless if we look at what the South African farmer has been able to achieve over the years in spite of these unfavourable circumstances, then it is something of which we can indeed be proud.

Agriculture comprises a very important part of our national economy. In fact, agriculture has been the source of the greatest part of our national income in the past. This of course places a greater responsibility on agriculture. However, it not only places a greater responsibility on agriculture it does so in the case of the Government as well, in this sense that it must continually be keeping a watchful eye on the interests of agriculture. Let me mention one typical example to illustrate this. During the great drought which is being experienced at present in some parts of our country, agriculture has earned much less currency than it ought to have earned in normal circumstances. But there are other disadvantages connected with this too. There is for example the fact that we lost overseas markets, markets which had only been found with great difficulty in the past. Another consequence was that we had to import agricultural produce which was not readily available at home in order to meet our domestic requirements. Now the question arises: What is the extent of the State’s responsibility to agriculture? The reply is that it is the duty of the State to see to it that the agricultural industry remains economically sound. But following from this a further question arises, namely what steps the State may justifiably take to carry out that task and function without being prejudicial to the other sectors of our economy. We find the reply to this question when we analyse the factual position. Here we must briefly take note of the background to the granting of credit in agriculture.

In the past agriculture was granted credit from three main sources. The first was the private sector, i.e. chiefly commercial banks and other financing institutions; in the second place there was the Land Bank; and in the third place it was done by the State through its Departments of Agriculture, of Water Affairs, of State Advances, through the Farmers’ Assistance Act and through Agricultural Technical Services. Let us now try to ascertain what the contribution of each one of these factors was. The contribution of the private sector consisted mainly of the granting of loans at high rates of interest. This assistance was given purely on a profit-making basis. Here capital was made readily available upon the provision of the necessary security. The risk factor was consequently a very minor one. Then we also find the private sector is generally very fickle as far as its investments in the farming industry are concerned. There were certain requirements in the farming industry for which the private sector would not provide any capital. From that we can deduce that the private sector cannot meet the requirements of the agricultural industry to a sufficient degree. The second source of credit was the Land Bank and each and every one of us wants to thank this Bank for its always having had a conservative approach to agricultural financing. In fact, I even want to go so far as to say that the Land Bank has exercised a stabilizing influence on the farming industry. It has to a very large extent prevented the occurrence of greater inflationary tendencies in this industry. In the third place there is the State. The State, too, through its various Departments, was conservative in this respect and we are grateful to be able to testify to this. In fact the State has always been so conservative in this connection that sometimes, because of circumstances beyond its control, it had to subsidize certain commodities for certain purposes.

Here we now have the three sectors which have in the past undertaken agricultural financing. Each one of them has, within its own spheres, tried to bring relief. Notwithstanding all this there were, however, many remaining deficiencies which had to be supplied. There is, for example, the predominating consideration that the risk factor in the farming industry is greater than in any other industry and, to crown it all, is unpredictable as well.

Now we must try and determine where the responsibility of the State in this connection lies. As I have already said, and as was rightly indicated by the hon. the Minister, the responsibility of the State lies somewhere between the two extremes, in other words between the profit motive on the one hand, a motive which brings with it all the evils I have mentioned, and on the other hand the subsidizing of produce, a phenomenon which also goes hand in hand with certain evils. If we then ask what the responsibility of the State is, we must say that it is the State’s responsibility towards the farming industry to supply economic credit under specified circumstances. What has the position been in the past? In the past steps were taken in terms of certain legislation to overcome difficulties which cropped up from time to time in agriculture. The hon. the Minister indicated here that three years after Jan van Riebeeck had landed the first farmer found himself in difficulties. The merits of his case assisted in his being helped out of his difficulty. Since then thousands of farmers have been helped in this regard on the merits of their case. Owing to the nature of the economic difficulties experienced in recent years in the field of agriculture, other methods have been sought in order to cope with these problems. That is why the most beneficial portions of all relevant legislation which we have had so far is to be found in this measure which is now under consideration. I am thinking in particular of legislation dealing with State land and settlements, and State advances and farmers’ assistance. Although this measure is cast in the same mould as the above-mentioned legislation, certain loopholes in the old legislation have resulted in this Bill containing a number of improvements in certain respects in order to make provision for the particular circumstances which we are experiencing to-day. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, all possibilities and eventualities which may be met with in the future are being taken into account in this measure, in as far as one is able to predict them. What to me is of great importance—and it is something which will be greatly appreciated by every farmer in the country—is the fact that this Bill places our agricultural credit on a permanent basis. We have had the experience in the past that where disasters, such as floods, droughts, locust plagues, etc., struck the agricultural industry, the entire Cabinet has had to be convened to give attention to special auxiliary measures which had then to be taken This procedure has always been regarded as unsatisfactory and was an indication of a loophole in our legislation. I would like to mention an example in connection with our production loans. There was a time when such loans had to be reinstituted annually and that the merits of each application were gone into in order to determine whether the loans for that specific geographical area were to be made available. Subsequently the hon. the Minister decided that this routine must no longer be followed and the Cabinet instructed that the scheme should be permanent and should be applied wherever it was necessary. In addition every application had also to be dealt with on its own merits. That is why it makes us very grateful, Mr. Speaker, that this measure provides that all agricultural credit schemes in respect of our farmers will be of a permanent nature and that there will be no demand for special measures in this regard. Consequently this Bill is being welcomed everywhere, precisely because it is of such a comprehensive nature. To tell the truth, I definitely expected the United Party to complain that the hon. the Minister had wanted to appropriate too much power for himself, for in terms of this measure the Minister will be empowered to sell any land to any person at any price. He can even provide the entrepreneur with the necessary means to be able to exploit that land properly. That is why I am surprised that that side has not once more raised the old cry, for here there was an opportunity for them to complain once more that the Minister will have too much power.

I now want to give a few sundry indications of what a good effect this measure will have on our agriculture. In the first place it will lead to the consolidation of uneconomic units. We are aware that the term “uneconomic unit” is a disputable one. Such a condition must be proved in practice. It is not something which can be defined in a statute book. Nowhere will we find a definition of an uneconomic unit. We are aware of the fact that many people these days have to make a living on uneconomic units. The evils associated with such units have come strongly to the fore owing to the poor agricultural conditions we have been experiencing during the past few years. Whenever a farmer on his unit reaps the maximum harvest which his unit is capable of producing, he is making a good living. But as soon as he experiences setbacks, it is inevitable that he will have a hard time. Of course it is quite possible now—and that side will probably use it as ammunition against us in due course—that certain farmers will have to leave the industry because their small pieces of land are being transferred to their neighbours so as to be consolidated with the latter’s small units. We already see how the United Party is licking its chops to make use of this fact for propaganda purposes. All that they want is that there should be more farmers, regardless of the fact that our surface area remains unchanged and irrespective of how many farmers are trying to find a means of livelihood in the farming industry. But, Mr. Speaker, it will save many people if their small pieces of land could be consolidated and if they could find another means of livelihood. The remaining farmers who then have larger pieces of land at their disposal ought then to be able to make a success of their undertaking.

I also want to refer to a point which has already been mentioned but which I would like to emphasize because it is of cardinal importance in the district from which I hail. I am referring to the numerous people who, due to unfavourable circumstances, owe the State considerable sums of money. This legislation will enable these people to consolidate such debts and to do so at a rate of interest of 5 per cent instead of a varying rate of interest between 4⅞ per cent and 6¼ per cent. I think this is something for which the South African farmer will be very grateful to this Government, for where can one borrow money to-day at a rate of interest of only 5 per cent? That is why I think the United Party has laid itself bare to unfavourable criticism by not drawing the attention of the farming community to this beneficial aspect of the measure under discussion. Another advantage of this Bill is to be found in the fact that in times of disaster it will be able to take much faster action in order to assist farmers who need assistance. In the past assistance has in fact been given where it was necessary. But because the necessary machinery was not immediately available in order to channelize the assistance, delays were inevitable. This measure provides that such machinery will continually be available to the Minister. That is why it will even be possible to take action overnight in order to help stricken farmers as quickly as possible.

In the light of this measure I feel that we can expect a much more realistic approach to the farming industry as such. In the first place a farmer requiring assistance will first of all come into contact with his local people, because they will be the people who will investigate his case and consider his application. The members of the district committees will be people who know the individual applicant and his circumstances. They will most probably also be acquainted with the circumstances on his farm. Consequently they will be able to determine the productivity of the entrepreneur and his undertaking very thoroughly. If a person comes to grief, as it were, owing to circumstances beyond his control, it will be possible for the State to consider his case favourably and take a considerable risk provided he is “right” as a person and may be regarded as a good proprietor. And this information can be obtained by the district committees which will furnish first-class information regarding the applicant and the merits of his case to the authorities. That is why I regard the establishment of local committees as a very sound foundation on which to build. In the second place, Sir, I want to refer to the important Agricultural Credit Board of which we have already heard this afternoon. As the hon. the Minister indicated, this Board will consist of ten members who are experts. Now, far be it from me to want to insinuate that people who in the past had had to perform duties of this nature were not authorities in this field. But I understand that another policy is going to be applied in respect of the appointment of these people. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest—and perhaps the hon. the Minister can furnish us with information in this regard—that the people serving on the district boards as well as on the national council will be remunerated in such a way that the right person will be prepared to do the work. I am not trying to imply that the remuneration attached to the work in the past was sought after by people, or is going to be sought after. Our farmers’ assistance committees which have accomplished such outstanding work for so many years, did it as a labour of love and in order to serve their own neighbourhoods. Where we shall now be dealing with a new dispensation in the farming industry and where new committees and a new Board is going to be appointed, I therefore want to make a plea that provision be made for satisfactory remuneration.

I want to conclude, Sir, by expressing my thanks to all who contributed to the drafting of this Bill, including the Cabinet and the hon. the Minister. We are greatly indebted to them and we should like to give this measure out blessing.

Mr. Speaker, I have found it very interesting sitting here and listening to what must be one of our most important debates, relating as it does to farmers and their problems. Many of our farmers have their backs to the wall and are fighting for their very suvival. But some of the points raised by hon. members on that side are beyond my comprehension. I say this, Sir, because I often wonder just why certain hon. members on that side of the House have come here. Do those members think they have been sent here by their constituents to thank most profusely every so and so they happen to come across in the House? Mr. Speaker, I consider it my duty—indeed, the duty of every hon. member elected to this House—to advance constructive criticism and offer assistance wherever possible. Yesterday, and on preceding days, I heard hon. members on that side asking hon. members on this side what our solutions to various problems are. We are asked to give solutions. Yet when we offer constructive criticism and supply what we consider to be solutions to problems, hon. members on that side are wont to complain. To take one instance, Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Potgietersrus complains that instead of indulging in vigorous criticism of the hon. the Minister’s Bill we should rather give our blessing to it. Now, Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been considered and constructed, so to speak, over the years, and all that this side of the House is trying to do—and this is what hon. members on that side should also try to do—is to improve on it. Because, Sir, there are definitely many defects in the Bill. No-one in this House can deny that. We are here to suggest improvements to the Bill, and not tc thank the hon. the Minister ad nauseum so that he sits complacently happy in the thought that all is fair in the garden when in fact it is not.

This Bill is intended to assist the farmer who is battling to-day, whether his predicament is caused by drought or any other adverse conditions. We must be determined to devise ways and means of assisting a harassed farmer in the most practical way and with the least possible delay. Now, the hon. member for Gardens said that the title of this measure should really be “The Agricultural Finance Bill”. Well, Sir, I have to agree with the hon. member, because I think the present title, namely “Agricultural Credit Bill” is somewhat misleading. Because when the man in the street reads this title, he is inclined to sneer that the Government is once again assisting farmers and arranging for credit all along the way. Of course that is not so. What this Bill is attempting to do is to provide financial assistance to distressed farmers. The farmer will, of course, have to pay for such assistance as is granted to him. He does not get it free and gratis. But the man in the street does not know that. The farmer who needs the assistance envisaged in this Bill is the man who is bonded to the hilt. In other words, his farm is fully bonded for its full value. Moreover, he also has many loose debts. I mention this because I know of cases—and invariably every case is more or less the same—where farmers have loose debts all over the place, amongst others with the farmers’ co-operative where the farmer buys most of his farm requisites. The farmer cannot meet those debts—not even if he should get 20, 30 or even 40 inches of rain within the next 12 months can he extinguish his debts. The farmer is in fact solvent, but he is on the very verge of going under. The type of farmer I am alluding to is in fact farming on an economic unit, or as the hon. member for East London (City) said, “Hy is kredietwaardig.” He meant, of course, that the farmer is on an economic unit and indeed farming economically. Now, the hon. member for Potgietersrus stated that the concept of an economic unit cannot be defined. Well, Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. Let me explain by saying that I do not consider a farmer on an uneconomic unit to be that farmer who, having experienced good as well as bad times, has nevertheless brought up a family, educated his children but who to-day, because of drought conditions, finds himself in the unfortunate position of being unable to meet his liabilities. I consider an uneconomic farmer to be that person who pays an uneconomic price for ground. Whether he pays R50,000 or R100,000, if he has paid too much then he has over-paid, with the result he is the owner of what is in fact an uneconomic unit.

It may even be R1,000,000.

I am indeed glad to see that the hon. the Minister agrees with me, and I hope the hon. member for Potgietersrus also agrees with me.

Has the hon. member ever been to Potgietersrus?

Yes, indeed I have. Now, Mr. Speaker, the man on the economic unit is paying 8 per cent interest, and if his interest rate is lower, then he is in fact very lucky. Invariably the rate is more than 8 per cent. Sometimes it goes as high as 10 per cent. He is so deep in debt that we who are trying to assist him believe that insolvency is imminent. Therefore we are asking the State to assist him through this Bill. We want to assist him because his bank manager has turned his back on him. The bank cannot finance him any further, in spite of the security he still is able to offer. When he turns to the Land Bank he is told that he is too far gone and assistance from that source is out of the question. He is advised to approach either the Farmers’ Assistance Board or this Department.

It will not be the two any more.

I realize that, and I quite agree that there should only be the one body. Now, Sir, the difficulty is just this. When the creditors of the man seeking assistance get together to discuss his case, they come to the conclusion that they will have to cut their losses and reconcile themselves to the fact that they will receive only so much in the rand. There are the men who have stood security for that farmer over the years. He did not just accumulate the bond from his banker without any security. And what is more, the men who stood security to the bank are included in the list of creditors and they all meet, and decide how to cut their losses. Then the bank comes along and says—and this so often happens—that they are prepared to write it off or receive 50c in the rand, or 80c, or whatever the case may be, but that the man’s insurance policies will not be forfeited. The banker says, we have issued the farmer an overdraft on security, on condition that he hands over his life insurance policies to us. This is the crux of the whole argument and this is where we find the difficulty arising. I am giving you a practical instance and let us be logical about it. We must find the faults and defects in this Bill and try and rectify them. We find a difficulty arising between the Department and the bank and the question is who is going to get hold of the farmer’s insurance policies. As I have said, meanwhile he has handed them over to the bank and the bank has been paying the premiums on those policies for quite a number of years. And we find, Sir, that after having gone through the full story which has taken a considerable time—a period of three, or four or even five years—the farmer’s creditors have not been paid out nor does the man know just where he stands. It is taking far too long. “Soos ons in Afrikaans se: ‘ons is te langdradig met die hele affere.’” We are wasting too much time while difficulties are arising all the time. The creditors are complaining, the banks are complaining, the man does not know where he stands and nobody knows as to what actually is happening. All the farmer knows is that he applied to the Department five years ago and that he has received no assistance. Now, Mr. Speaker, that should not happen. And we should find ways and means of avoiding all the delay.

There is another point which I should like to mention and which invariably happens as well. When the Department has agreed that it would take over the man’s liabilities and hold a bond on his assets and after an inventory has been made on all he owns—i.e. after all this wastage of time, years of drought and other acts of God—the Department will, as provided in this clause, make a further inventory. Stock is taken again, and the farmer, instead of having the original 100 cattle and say 600 sheep, he has now lost some of those cattle and sheep through drought or other causes. In other words, his assets are not as good as they were when the inventory was first made. This is all due to a lack of speed on the part of the Department resulting in more queries from the Department. There is a further point I wish to bring to the notice of the House and I would like the Minister to consider this very seriously. I believe it to be wrong for the Minister to appoint all ten members to the board referred to in Clause 2. In this respect I differ from the hon. member for Winburg because in my opinion at least four of those members should be elected by the South African Agricultural Union. The hon. member for Winburg objects to that. He said that the moment we do that we start dragging politics into the matter. I am not aware as to the exact manner in which the Free State is working, but in the Cape Province we certainly do not have politics in our South African Agricultural Union. And, what is more, we are not likely to have it. I am surprised to hear the hon. member suggesting that politics might come into the picture if we should bring in the South African Agricultural Union. I am just wondering whether the walk-out in March this year by 200 delegates at a congress representing mealie farmers in the Kroonstad area was politically inspired. Was it political? I do not believe so. I believe it was because those farmers were dissatisfied with the hon. the Minister’s ways …

They were dissatisfied with the Agricultural Union.

But it was not political. Will the hon. the Minister agree then that it was political? I do not believe that.

They were dissatisfied with the Agricultural Union and that is why they walked out.

It was not a political matter. They were dissatisfied with the Department. And there are many, many more. I should furthermore like to draw attention to the committee of four members provided for in this Bill. Here, too, I think the Minister should reconsider the matter and have at least one of those members elected from the South African Agricultural Union. And, Mr. Speaker, I say so because I believe that those members who will be elected by that very responsible and representative body representing all farmers in all spheres of farming life in South Africa, will elect the best possible men for that post. And when we see the amount of time wasted in rendering financial assistance to farmers there ought to be some consideration to this suggestion, because the people appointed by that body will at least be farmers who should be in a better position to look after the affairs of farmers. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that during his term of office my predecessor most definitely commanded the respect of this House as well as of the people outside. Therefore I trust that I shall be worthy to follow in his footsteps during the period I shall serve in this House. I am a newcomer and therefore I want to act accordingly. I want to mention a few things in the interest of our farmers, and I want to outline the circumstances which have given rise to this legislation. As you know I serve the constituency of Prieska, and I really represent two groups of people, namely the wage-earners, and in particular the farmers and the farming community which forms approximately 80 per cent of my constituency. Where it will be my task in future to act in the interests of those people, I now want to give my wholehearted support to this Bill which has been drafted in their interests. Before pronouncing upon the Agricultural Credit Bill, I want to mention a few things which have given rise to the drafting thereof. We know that the Buchuberg Irrigation Scheme came into being 37 years ago in a time of distress. During those years those people toiled and moiled with little means at their disposal. But they have battled on up to now, and that which they have achieved can only command the admiration of those who know them. We want to thank the Government for what it has done for them over the past years. There has been a marked improvement in their living conditions, and in particular we want to say thank you for the economic units which have been allotted to them and which have enabled them to be in a position to-day where they can farm on an economic basis. In particular it has been the privilege of those people to obtain a good price for their products. They have certainly had to contend with problems in the past and to-day certain problems remain to be solved. And now, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude towards the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agricultural and Water Affairs who has given his assurance that attention will be given to the unsolved problems of those people. Another group of farmers in my constituency consists mostly of sheepfarmers. I represent a constituency which is nearly 350 miles long and 200 miles wide. In this constituency, Mr. Speaker, there are only five regions which have not been declared drought-stricken areas. I want to emphasize that under normal circumstances our farmers would not have found themselves in the position in which they find themselves to-day. We are dealing with phenomena over which man has no control and we are utterly dependent on God to bring an end to that condition. We have people in the North-West who are familiar with the tough conditions of the North-West. We have people who are capable of meeting all the demands of the farming profession. We have people who will fight for their future to the very end. I am confident that the financial assistance rendered by the State to the farmers in my area and in the North-West, will be repaid by them to the last cent. Mr. Speaker, I want to say how thankful I am that virtually no farmers have been ruined in spite of a periodic drought of nearly ten years in the North-West. I do not know all the representatives in this House, Mr. Speaker, but I do know the farmers in my constituency and I do not know of a single farmer amongst them who will not welcome this Agricultural Credit Bill. And because that is so, I have been encouraged and possibly the Government has been encouraged too, because it knows that it has the support of organized agriculture in this respect as well. For that reason we have seen lately that people who have stood outside organized agriculture over the years, are now throwing their weight behind organized agriculture and behind the Government. I do not want to go into details. I think the members of this House have done so or will still do so. The fact that farmers have sometimes experienced hard times in the past may also be blamed on certain other things. If I have to mention something to-day which has bothered me over the years, something for which a solution has now been found and in respect of which a new course has now been adopted, it is the designation of the various assistance schemes in the past. On the application forms of some of the assistance schemes the expression “poor-relief” appeared. The farmers did not like that, and it also offended me. This prevented many farmers who were destitute, but who had a sense of honour and who were proud to be farmers, from participating in those schemes. That is how it came about that a farmer’s honour and pride cost him his future. Under the new set-up which will result from the new legislation, we feel at liberty to come forward as honest farmers because this legislation welcomes us as honest farmers and treats us as such. Mr. Speaker, there is no case to which there is only one side. There are always two sides to any case. In one’s approach to the agricultural policy of the Government one also has to be prepared to see both sides, because one is never capable of forming a judgment before having considered both sides of a case. Only then is one capable of forming a judgment, a true judgment. It is our privilege to be entering a new field which takes us away from short-term planning and focuses our attention on long-term action with a view to security for the future. As a newcomer I do not want to use all the time at my disposal, but I trust and believe that the Agricultural Credit Bill will in the future be the Act which will keep our farmers in their profession in so far as is humanly possible. The Government’s aim with economic units is undoubtedly to cause small farmers to farm economically. I am grateful that under this Act it will not only be a man’s possessions or the extent of his unit which will be taken into account. I know of farmers who have inherited from 10,000 to 14,000 morgen of land and who have not made a success of that. I also know of small farmers, however, who have had to buy their land and who have made a success of their farms. For that reason I shall always plead the cause of the small farmer. What I particularly appreciate is that the Bill is so designed that the case of every individual will be dealt with on its own merits. To that farmer who has proved that he can make a success of his farm, whether he possesses a great deal or very little, the way is now clear to work out his own future and salvation on the basis of this Act. There will be people who will be disappointed with the legislation. The allegation was made a short while ago that the small farmer would have to pay too much for his land. This legislation will have to prevent a person who owns an uneconomic unit from being helped from the frying pan into the fire. The Act will have to help the small farmer in such a way that he can make progress on an economic basis, because some cases are deserving of assistance and some are not. I know that there are uneconomic units in my constituency. I want to say here to-day that there are people who are going to be disappointed, because this Act is aimed not only at helping farmers, but also at providing for their future. I want to thank the Government for taking that attitude. How often has it not been necessary for me as a parent to refuse the requests of my children? For the moment I was perhaps a bad father to my child, but with a view to the future I was a good father to him. Therefore we accept this legislation in the knowledge that it will bring us stability in the future. Because I know how much the Government cares for the farmer, I also know that we shall remain children of South Africa. I believe that a policy for a growing agriculture has to be extended and adapted continually. I have confidence that the people who sit in this House know the farmers to such an extent that they will know when to extend and when to adapt. I shall always endeavour to see both sides of every case and in that way to form a sound judgment in the interests of our country. Furthermore, I shall endeavour to see agricultural issues in a broader national perspective, so that short-term action may make way for long-term action with a view to the future of our nation and fatherland.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on a very positive speech, a speech in which he showed in this House that he can speak about agriculture with love, with knowledge and with the right perspective. Before I confine myself to the Bill, I have to refer to a few of the speeches made here. I found it particularly striking that hon. members on our side had one and all done their homework and knew this Bill with the result that they also interpreted it correctly. However, what is the position on the opposite side? I should like to refer to two of the hon. members, i.e. the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) and the hon. member for East London (City) who contradicted each other completely. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) drags the matter of agricultural prices into this Bill. Furthermore, he also drags in products. Mr. Speaker, you would never show as much mercy to me as you have shown the hon. member by allowing him to drag into an Act factors which have nothing to do with that Act.

That is a reflection on the Chair.

The hon. member drags the prices of products into this Bill in an attempt to prove that the necessary properity has been lacking in the field of agriculture and that this Act has consequently become a necessity. He is a stranger in Jerusalem. Is he not aware of the fact that the South African Agricultural Union specifically asked for this Act, irrespective of the economic condition of the farmer in general in South Africa? According to the hon. member, and according to the hon. member for East London (City) as well, there is a great number of farmers in the country who cannot be helped in terms of this Act. According to them only a small minority can be helped. I want to request hon. member to go and do their homework and to point out to me at the Committee Stage or in the third-reading debate the section they have found in this Act which excludes any farmer in South Africa from assistance. They will not find such a section in this Act. This is an enabling Act which makes it possible for the Minister and an autonomous board to help each farmer on merit, i.e. each farmer whom they consider to be in need of help. Then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg asks us to make provision in this Act for writing off bad debts. I do not know whether that was his interpretation as a result of what the hon. member for Gardens had read out about the old Jewish system according to which bad debts were written off after seven years, where it says in the Bible that one had to allow the land to rest every seven years. I do not know whether he connected it with that, but show me any industry in South Africa which writes off bad debts.

May I put a question? Has the Farmers’ Assistance Board never written off bad debts?

No, the Farmers’ Assistance Board has consolidated debts and entered into an agreement with the creditors. but it has not written off public debt.

The hon. member, just as the hon. member for East London (City), now wants to make out a case before this House that the Agricultural Union should nominate four members of this Credit Board. However, do hon. members not realize that it is an autonomous board, and that the House of Assembly holds the Minister responsible for the action taken by his Department, and not the South African Agricultural Union? Where will the responsibility of this Parliament be vested if we give the various autonomous boards the opportunity of appointing or nominating or electing members to that board? No, these people must make out a better case for it. Surely, they are not all newcomers. They ought to know what the business and responsibilities of this House are. I shall refer to the hon. member for East London (City) in a moment and I should like him to stay here. I want to say that we have entered upon a new agricultural era. When the hon. the Prime Minister announced and established the new Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, the Minister and the various Departments had to continue to grant assistance to the farmers in terms of the old laws, the Crown Land and Settlements Act, the Farmers’ Assistance Act, and the State Advances Act. They had to do that by means of the existing Land Boards and the Farmers’ Assistance Board, and all assistance was rendered in this regard. Seeing that we are parting with those old departments and boards, this is perhaps a suitable occasion for making a brief survey of the achievements of these old departments and boards in South Africa, and to pay tribute to and thank the officials of those two departments, namely Lands, State Advances and Farmers’ Assistance, as well as the board members who served on them. I also want to pay tribute to the previous Ministers who handled these departments. I am thinking, for instance, of the two former Ministers of Lands, Mr. Strijdom and Mr. Sauer.

What have these Departments done? I do not want to tire the House with many statistics. I merely want to say that from 1960-1 to 30th June, 1966, the Departments of Lands provided in terms of its three sections—Section 20, the consolidation of uneconomicunits, and Section 53—R14,785,000 to assist farmers. Similarly the Department of State Advances and Farmers’ Assistance provided an amount of R39,724,750 from 1960-1 to 30th June, 1966. In other words, during this short period of almost five years these two Departments have assisted farmers to the extent of R54,510,000. That is phenomenal assistance which has already been rendered during this short period. However, that is not all. In reviewing the grants made from 1912 to 31st March, 1966, we see that the Department of Lands has helped 9,512 farmers to buy land in terms of Section 20, and in terms of Section 23, which deals with more densely populated settlements and other State land, land was granted to 12,844 farmers. In other words, during this period this Department helped almost 23,000 farmers to acquire land in South Africa. If we look at the number of accounts we find that State Advances already have 49,000, and that the Department of Lands has approximately 8,000 accounts at the moment. It is therefore a colossal piece of work which these Departments have done up to now, and I think that we should place on record that we have to thank those Departments with their officials and their boards—the Land Boards and Provincial Land Boards and the Central Board and the Farmers’ Assistance Board—for the fine service they have rendered to agriculture. It was valuable and fine service.

However, I shall now deal with another aspect, the Bill itself, and I want to look ahead. Hon. members on the opposite side said that the Act was too limited in scope and that it was too late, and then the hon. member for East London (City), as the philosopher of agricultural financing, told us that there was a method of consolidation in America by which all farmers were assisted. By way of interjection I wanted to know where it was and he replied that it was in America. However, let us see what the position is in America. I have with me a report dated 27th July, 1965, on the conference in America where they had to decide how to try to rehabilitate and help agriculture. I only want to read two paragraphs from this report. The hon. member wants to hold America up to us to show how far we in South Africa are behind—

They then tried to analyse how they should be helped, and what were their eventual findings as published in the report on the conference of the Rural Community Development Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture—

Then the hon. member wants to hold America up to us as a country which makes adequate provision for the financing of all farmers. He should do his homework again. He should go to America again. I do not know whether he can do it again at the expense of the Wool Board, but he should pay America another visit and see what is being done there. He must not furnish us with wrong information. Looking ahead, I believe that this new Department will be better able to cope with these matters. I shall now deal with the hon. member for East London (North), who said that there was a protracted delay, and he wanted to be very constructive by telling us how these things should be done; however, he never told us what those constructive things were. He said only that there was delay. This new Department will be better able to grant assistance in a streamlined manner and much more rapidly than before, in the first place by granting assistance if one wants to purchase land in terms of Section 20. This Department as well as this autonomous board will enable the Minister to consider on merit the cases of all kinds of farmers and to assist them immediately.

However, it goes further than that. It is the position at present, just as it is in America, that a man goes to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for advances in respect of soil conservation, farm planning and fencing. He goes to the Department of Water Affairs for advances to bore for and to lay on water. Then he goes to the Department of Lands to buy land and stock, and so on, and he goes to the Department of State Advances for a State loan. One will now have one coordinating system of accounts for that farmer one is helping. There will be one statement of account for that farmer from which one will be able to see the various loans he has obtained for various purposes, and then one will be able to consider his liquidity and what further assistance one is able to give him, without helping him from the frying-pan into the fire. This is a new system, a system for which the Agricultural Union asked, one which we have worked out properly and which eliminates the position where a farmer received accounts from five Departments while the various Departments did not know about the others. We shall now have one system of accounts. The hon. the Minister has already said that we are not encroaching at all upon the preserves of the Land Bank.

However, it goes further than that. It is not only the fact that there is now a 5 per cent basis. It is also a system of granting no subsidies. In other words, if we believe that a subsidy should be granted for the sake of soil conservation, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will possibly have to subsidize that interest and transfer it. But this Department does not grant subsidies. However, there is another major task that has to be handled by this Department, and that is the task of giving South Africa an independent and self-respecting farming population who are also producers.

Let us take a brief look at the past. Unfortunately we only have 164,000,000 morgen of land in South Africa, of which only 106,000,000 morgen are available for agriculture. That is one of our most precious possessions. Unfortunately, in the past governments have sometimes utilized this precious land wrongly. They also used this land to solve the poor White problem, and they placed people in settlements in an attempt to solve labour problems when unemployment prevailed in the country. However, that time is past. We do not have unemployment in this country; we now have full employment and there is even a shortage of workers. We are now able to develop a sound agricultural economy by establishing in the agricultural industry people who really belong there, people who will be producers on an economic agricultural basis. In the past these people have often been established on agricultural land at subsidized land prices. The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that we know of cases where people have made up to 1,000 per cent profit when selling land. However, this led to a lop-sided position in the agricultural economy, because as far as his products were concerned, the man who had obtained subsidized land, below the economic price, competed on the market with the man who had paid the full price for his land. As regards this Department, the new policy will be that one will grant a man land at the intrinsic value, the actual value, so that one might place the economy on a sound basis. But further, owing to this tendency one has reached the position in South Africa that land has often been subdivided into uneconomic units, and here I want to pause for a while because several hon. members on the opposite side have referred to it. As far as these uneconomic units are concerned, I should like to see us put an end to these stories once and for all. Neither this Government nor any of its Ministers have ever mentioned small farmers, as the United Party is so fond of saying and said again in the Other Place yesterday. No, this Government said that an uneconomic farmer has to be helped to consolidate until he has an economic unit. I should like the United Party to take a stand on this matter, because with this Department we are able to do that on a large scale. It is not necessary for me to show how far subdivision has gone in this country, but it is necessary to show what this Department can in fact do. This legislation is a model Act for which the rest of the world is also searching. I have here the report of the inquiry into “farm enlargement and consolidation” instituted by the congress held in Canada on 24th January, 1966. What do I find in that?—

There is no other organization in South Africa which is able to promote this matter so easily on a voluntary basis. With this Act we are making provision for those facilities. Further the report goes on to say—

However, all of them are still searching. They still do not have a system of financing there. They are still trying to work one out. However, as a result of the fact that we have in South Africa a Government which is not only actively alert in regard to agriculture, and not only aware of the condition of the soil and the feelings of the farmer, but also enjoys the confidence of agriculture, we are ahead of the rest of the world in regard to establishing machinery for financing purposes which will in the first place enable farmers to effect on a voluntary basis consolidation into economic units.

But nobody is arguing with you.

I am glad, but the hon. member said that the platteland was being depopulated. Now, my question is the following: When we have to consolidate these uneconomic units, and 20 farmers have to be moved from a district to a new agricultural area which we are opening, such as the Orange River Scheme, will the hon. member say that Potgietersrus is now being depopulated because we are moving those farmers from there, and will he then once again make political propaganda such as he made here the other day? That is the crux of the matter. I want hon. members on the opposite side to see this matter in the right perspective. They should not on the one hand, because it suits them, make the accusation that depopulation of the platteland is taking place, and, on the other hand, say that they are not arguing with us when we are introducing an Act which provides the machinery required for consolidating farms. They should adopt a consistent attitude.

In the first place I say that it will definitely be voluntary, because this Act now makes provision for something which was not in the old Land Act, namely that when an owner of land wants to purchase other land in order to consolidate it with his, then the Minister can do so. The Minister will not tell him that he is being disqualified because he has land. That will be based on merit.

But I go further. Since the State requires land and since the State has to do the financing, the time will come that the State will have to finance on an economic basis. For that reason this Department will give credit on an economic basis, and one cannot consolidate uneconomic land on an economic basis, land for which far too much was paid or land which is not sufficiently productive to keep a man alive. For that reason the State itself will also have to take steps to consolidate, and there is only one department which makes that possible at present, and this is the Department through which that can be done.

What percentage of the land do you consider to be uneconomic?

The hon. member wants to know what percentage of the land is uneconomic; it depends on the area. One has ecological areas in South Africa which are extensive farming areas which should not be ploughed; one has other areas, such as here in the Western Province—the wine farmers for instance—where one can have small farms and yet be able to make an economic living. It is childish to ask across the floor of the House what percentage of farms in South Africa is uneconomic; however, this I can tell the hon. member. If one wants to institute an inquiry into some of the extensive areas and if one wants to consider them to be cattle-farming units, one will find that according to their carrying capacity as cattle-farming units, a large percentage of them are uneconomic—marginal lands which ought not to be ploughed but which are in fact ploughed in an attempt to make them economic.

The Minister said that 60 per cent was uneconomic.

Where did he say that? You see, Sir, that is the unfortunate problem of those hon. members; they simply make wild allegations, as was done here by the hon. member for East London (City) who framed his own charge here and said that this Act did not go far enough and that one could therefore not help certain people. He tried to analyze what an economic unit was and which people were still credit-worthy. However, these were charges he himself framed. There are hundreds of people of the type to which he referred, people who have assets of a certain value and who have heavy mortgages on their farms, who have already been granted assistance by State Advances and the Farmers’ Assistance Board in the past. Why will it not be possible to assist them under this Department?

We support you.

Why then does the hon. member say that the Bill does not go far enough; why then does he frame that charge? This Act is not only an Act to rehabilitate and finance farmers; the purpose of this Act is to enable us to carry economically on a long-term basis farmers who need State aid, and to guide them into being independent, self-respecting owners of their own land and to enable them to get away from the idea that they will be bywoners; to get away from the idea that they will be perpetual tenants. In other words, as soon as the State has assisted the farmer in this regard, he will simply be registered eventually as an ordinary mortgagor, just as a man who has a mortgage at the Land Bank or a man who has a mortgage at another bank. The other possibility is that the State is prepared to run a much greater risk than private initiative or the Land Bank would be prepared to run in this regard. It is merely a system to develop our agriculturalists into being independent, economic farmers.

Hon. members of the Opposition said very little about the Bill; they spoke about the policy. They asked the Minister what kind of farmers could be helped under his policy and what financing would be granted. However, I repeat that this measure is an enabling Act which makes it possible to do these things; which links these two departments together; which establishes one account for a farmer who is to be carried by the State. This is a Bill which will, over the years, be regarded by agriculturalists as one of the greatest blessings ever to come their way.

I want to take the Minister up on two points. He has asked us, in rather an excited way, to show him where the Government has written off debts of farmers in difficulties. I would like to ask him whether it is true or false, that under the Farmers’ Assistance Board and its schemes, the Government has bought in farms at certain prices and sold them at a loss. Sir, I have been in business for many years and I have dealt with large numbers of farms. I have seen men struggling from time to time to make a living, to pay their way, and to pay their debts. In the years that I spent in the Province I also paid some attention to the minor sub-division of land, especially farm land. It is an easy thing to talk about a sub-economic unit but it is a very different thing to establish what it is. I am not against the Bill; I am for it, and I am going to ask the Minister if he is going to accept a little amendment from me. That brings me to the second point that I wish to raise this afternoon. It is this: He says that there are no farmers excluded, and he more or less throws a challenge across the floor of the House to us to produce the farmers who are excluded. I would like to tell him that the Coloured farmers are excluded and so are the Indian farmers in Natal.

But they have their own Department.

I am going to deal with that. I want to ask the Minister whether he will accept an amendment from me when we get to the Committee Stage to delete the word “White”? When I read this Bill, as I read all Bills, with a very critical eye, looking to see where there is discrimination against the Coloureds and other non-White races in this country, I was astounded to see the use of the word “White” and I thought that possibly the Minister was sincere and genuine in his attitude and that he really means what he has just said, namely that there are other departments to deal with the other races. I have made some inquiries, and as far as the Coloured people are concerned let me say, that where there are Coloured settlements, which are controlled by the Department of Coloured Affairs, there is provision for various facilities which these people may enjoy. But the Coloured farmer who is outside such a settlement and who is independent, has only the Land Bank to apply to. If this Bill goes through the old Farmers’ Assistance Board will disappear. The Coloured community, so far as farming is concerned, is right out of the picture under this Bill and so is the Indian farmer in Natal, who farms with sugar or who is a market gardener and who is a very valuable asset in our economy. I speak subject to correction, but to my knowledge nothing has been done by these other departments to take care of these two groups of people, and until such time as something is done, I think they should be covered in terms of this particular Bill. I think in fairness to these people that the Minister should accept a minor amendment from me to delete the word "White,” and then, at some time in the future, when the Ministers responsible for those departments come along and set up some sort of organization to deal with these matters, I will be the first to assist him and to wish him well. I think it time these people did get something.

The Minister speaks lightly of the depopulation of the platteland. The report of the commission on the Depopulation of the Platteland gives a variety of reasons for the depopulation of the Platteland and a most important reason is that we live in a modern age, and people are leaving farms for the bright lights of the cities. In the course of my duties, travelling backwards and forwards, especially over the Karoo—by the way I was rather amused to hear one speaker saying that his constituency is 300 miles long; mine is 1,000 miles long—I meet a few farmers or I visit the places where farmers should be, and I find that even the farmers themselves do not live on the farm; they live in the towns and there are Coloured managers on these farms. I would say to the Minister that he is entirely wrong to create the impression in this House, that anything to do with farming, as such, is the sole reason why people are leaving the platteland and coming to the towns.

The hon. the Minister also talked about hon. members on this side having had to move in from Potgietersrus to the Orange River. Let me just tell the hon. the Minister that he should not set too much store by the Orange River; he must make quite sure that he is going to get water, because if the new independent state cuts off the water in the Orange River at his frontier …

Order! The hon. member is wandering far and wide. He must come back to the Bill.

Very well, Sir, I bow to your ruling. Sir, these are the things which concern us. There is no shadow of doubt that a great deal of help has been given to farmers and I think we welcome it, we, who do not share in the prosperity. I meet numbers of Coloured farmers in the Karoo. I was asked over the telephone only this morning whether they are included. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether any discussions have taken place between him and his colleagues with a view to making provision for these people. Has the Minister of Coloured Affairs something in mind, because this is a consolidating Bill which is repealing numbers of Acts and sections of Acts. The House is now presented with this Bill, which the Government thinks is going to be the salvation of the farming community in this country, but it is for Whites only.

The hon. the Minister has also said that they are going to deal with the question as to whether or not a farming unit is economic. I would like to say from experience that in looking at the uneconomic unit one should take a look at the man who is on the uneconomic unit and who is not farming as correctly as he should. I am wondering whether this Bill really makes provision for a correction of the methods of farming by people who are not making a success of their farming operations. Sir, I see it all over the place, especially on irrigation settlements and farms of that kind, where neighbours point out the folly and the stupidity of the methods employed by neighbours. One finds, in dealing with the people who make the financial facilities available, the banks and the like, that very often the man is really not a farmer. I would like the Minister to tell me how he proposes to deal with those people, because this is an enabling measure. I would like to know what he is going to do with them.

Finally I want to ask the Minister whether he will accept an amendment from me or tell me what is going to happen with regard to Coloured and Indian farmers.

On 10th February, 1961, I moved the following private motion in this House—

Now, in 1966, we get this Bill, which seeks to meet that long-felt need. Until now we have had a host of existing credit sources, financing sources, from which the producer could draw in order to meet various requirements. In pointing out the shortcomings of the existing credit sources, as I am going to do, it is also my object to give a warning, in all humility, to the new board and the new financing institution which are to be established, that in my opinion they should not succumb to the same pitfalls. These existing credit sources, which are at present available to the farmer as regards his financing, are hampered by the following shortcomings: In the first place, the system of rates of interest is variable, and as a rule those rates of interest are on the highest level, a level which is unattainable to the producer. In the second place, the period of redemption of the loan varies from one place to another, and the farmer who under pressure of circumstances and the increase in credit requirements, particularly in recent times, had to go from port to starboard in order to obtain credit, found himself enmeshed in a maze of redemption periods. Number three: These existing credit institutions did not have a proper grasp or knowledge of the erosion of capital and capital reserves which farmers have experienced during the past number of decades. Even now the majority of these credit-giving concerns do not understand the great antithesis which has developed in our agriculture in the course of the past decades. They have not bridged it, nor can they bridge it, because they do not understand it and do not have the necessary knowledge of it and do not make the necessary provision for it. We should understand that a rift has developed in the farmer’s entire production process during the past number of years. As a farmer, I am responsible for the production leg. As for price determination and marketing policy, those have in latter years become a State function, and this antithesis which has developed in our entire agricultural structure, in our entire production process, is closely related to the nature of credit facilities which have changed their pattern from time to time and for which due regard should be had.

Order! I hope the hon. member will now come to the Bill.

I am coming to the Bill now. Now this Bill comes and seeks to provide for these deficiencies which have existed in respect of the farmer. As I see this Bill, it will provide in the changing financing requirements which in agriculture have gone hand in glove with the following: (1) The increased lack of security on the part of the farmer, which has been caused by climatological factors, by technological progress which has led to greater sensitivity and risk, because the means of production have become more expensive, and that vacuum and that need for a more effective credit-providing institution which has arisen are now attended to in this measure; (2) The fact that the increase in physical volume has concealed the actual decrease in interest earned on capital during the past number of years, as a result of the fact that the higher volume of production per unit has obscured the steady pressure of rising costs; in the past the existing credit-giving institutions did not provide adequately for that need, and I am therefore glad to see in this measure the beginnings of a development which will one day meet that need. When I am asked the question: “Apart from the climatological conditions and apart from natural disasters that have befallen the producer in recent times, to what do you ascribe the increased financial vulnerability of our farmers?” My reply is that in recent times the physical increase in volume has concealed the actual decrease in interest earned on capital as a result of the higher volume of production per unit which has obscured the rising costs. I envisage that this measure will provide for the production-cost structure, a structure which has been overtaken by the volume of physical production and for which existing financing sources could not provide. This critical point was reached in 1957 when the cost structure caught up with the increase in the volume of production. I can quote statistics to prove that, but unfortunately my time is limited. I could prove by chapter and verse, however, that from 1957, when this critical point was reached, the entire pattern of the farmer’s credit requirements began to change. Those requirements were then intensified and the farmer’s vulnerability increased without there being any concern that could provide for this changing pattern of requirements.

But these measures meet a further deficiency. Here I want to refer to the risk factor, which in recent decades has assumed greater proportions as a result of lower profit margins, higher production costs, but in particular as a result of the fact that where previously it was only a natural risk, something has now been added as a result of the development which has occurred, and as a result of the fact that the marketing aspect has complicated the entire production process, and as a result of the fact that farming has become an economical undertaking, and that something is an economic risk as a factor in the cost structure, and financing requirements as a factor that carries weight. Now in this measure I see a ray of light as regards redemption periods as well as rates of interest. I see in this the possibility to bridge the risk factor, in all its facets and in its full significance, in due course.

As a result of the conflux of all these factors, factors which can even increase, the need has arisen for a concern which can assist the farmer at the lowest possible rates of interest and the longest possible redemption period, taking into account the risk involved in a farming enterprise. This Bill meets that long-felt need. It happens so often that when the farmer appeals to undertakings for credit, he is told to increase his efficiency as a farmer and to produce more per morgen. Nobody denies the value of such advice, but I am convinced that for financing purposes the existing credit concerns attach far too much importance to the efficiency factor in the production process. It is not correlated with the actual state of affairs. The reason for this submission is that efficiency decreases or disappears altogether if it does not rain. Increasing financial vulnerability and impotence as a result of the decreasing difference between profits and production costs, undermine the efficiency of the best of farmers. In addition, the efficiency factor has been affected by an increase in the numbers of unskilled non-White labour in the agricultural sector as a whole, coupled, at the same time, with the decreasing and even the disappearance of White skilled labour. As for the over-emphasis of the efficiency factor, it poses a threat to the farmer in so far as it affects his ability to finance his farming as an economical enterprise. Many farmers have in fact suffered much harm as a result of this, or are hampered as regards the progress of their farming units.

In conclusion I want to express the hope that this measure will be able to meet the novice farmer’s claim to financing, and I also trust that as the provisions of this measure are applied in practice, financing and credit-giving will be related most directly to the determination of the economic unit factor. We have heard so much about uneconomic units. But what are these? I also want to express the hope that as this measure is developed in practice, there will be a very close correlation between financing and credit-giving in terms of the Bill, and an extensive land mapping policy. Efficient exploitation of land is closely bound up with our general agricultural problem. The two cannot be separated. Classification of land with a view to its various uses is absolutely essential for sound agricultural financing, something which is provided for in this Bill. It should be based on pedological soil classification, and agricultural financing as provided for in this Bill will have to be bound up with thorough investigation and evaluation of every unit which is farmed and in respect of which financing is desired. It will also have to be bound up with the application of actual research results in respect of the history of that particular production unit, the climatological circumstances of the particular region, the marketing possibilities of the commodity which is produced there, and with a system of the registration of farmers, something on which I do not want to elaborate at the moment. I hope this measure will meet with my views in this respect. I am not interested in the production volume of a few large farmers in the country, but in the question of how many producers can make a proper living on our land as good citizens of the country.

I want to give my full support to this measure and express the hope that with the introduction of this Bill, we are entering an era where agricultural financing will be placed on the level where it should have been placed in the past.

Mr. Speaker, it is a special privilege for me to have the opportunity to emphasize and underline a few considerations in connection with this measure. Before doing so, I want to express my disappointment, however, at the way in which hon. members on the opposite side of this House have behaved. Those of us who represent primarily agricultural constituencies are deeply conscious of the problems with which our farmers are struggling to-day, problems which have arisen particularly as a result of the prevailing and unprecedented drought. We who are associated with those people in their struggle with those problems every day, know that they may even be psychologically affected by those terrible circumstances. Now certain hon. members opposite, members who should set an example to me as a junior member, come along and try to make political capital out of the distress of those people, of my people. Hon. members opposite now come along and try to make political capital for themselves out of the situation those people are in. I want to ask them, and particularly the hon. member for East London (City), what people they represent in this House. Are there farmers in their constituencies as well, so that they also have occasion to struggle with the problems of the farmers, as we on this side struggle with those problems.? Is the fact that they, unlike us, cannot help their people, due to their being poor members of the House of Assembly? I want to draw a comparison in order to typify the situation. When we see bees circling round a beautiful flower we know that they are making honey, but at the same time there are also small spiders moving around there and sucking poison out of that same flower. Hon. members on this side of the House are the bees, and they will diligently continue, with the help of this measure as well, to relieve the distress of our farmers.

We are grateful that this measure has been introduced, in the first place because we shall be able to create a position under this measure in which it will be possible to consolidate the liabilities of our people. That is a very important consideration, and we want to thank the hon. the Minister for now making it possible for our people to consolidate their debts. I am also thankful for the prospect that it will be possible for land units to be consolidated as well. That will facilitate matters for our people. I want to stress that we in South Africa should try to get away from the idea which has been made current in South Africa, an idea to which momentum is being imparted by hon. members on the other side of this House, and that is that the small farmer must disappear. I want to put it very clearly that it has never been the policy of this Government to drive off his land any small farmer who has been a successful farmer. On the contrary. Like the hon. member for East London (City) I can also quote many examples of small farmers who have made a success of their farming operations. For that reason I see nothing in this measure which will prevent that assistance from being given to those people as well. Neither do I see anything in this measure or in the policy of the hon. the Minister or of his Department to the effect that the small farmer will be forced off his land. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I have in fact, become deeply conscious, of all that is being done to keep those people on their land. In other words, as I see the position there is nothing that will induce the efficient and capable person to leave his piece of land. On the other hand this measure does not imply that anybody can be placed on a large piece of land and that he will then be a successful farmer. For that reason—and I want to emphasize this—I believe that in the application of this measure everybody who is to be assisted should be weighed thoroughly. That will mean that the application of each applicant will have to be dealt with by the board on merit. Quite a number of factors will have to be taken into account. For example, it will be necessary to ascertain what the person’s qualities of leadership are. It will have to be ascertained whether he plays an active part in communal life. The board will have to establish whether the person concerned is able to plan judiciously and whether he is able to motivate his plans. Furthermore, it will be necessary to ascertain whether the person has any organizational ability and managerial acumen. As has been said, the farmer who has made a success of his farming—whether he farms on a large scale or on a small scale—will be able to continue. We want people in the farming industry who will continually apply themselves to collecting, analysing and judiciously evaluating information before deciding what is to be done. For that reason they must have organizational ability and managerial acumen so as to be able to take the necessary steps which will lead to success. Those results, when obtained, should be analysed objectively. Sir, we must try through this measure to overcome the problems which are being experienced to-day so that we may once more have a strong and healthy farming community in our rural areas once climatic conditions have become normal again.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that people who are assisted through whatever agency it may be should have certain obligations towards that body immediately. For that reason I want to plead this afternoon that after having been assisted through this measure, farmers should receive guidance and advice so that they may keep abreast of modern developments and circumstances.

I want to ask that generous assistance be given to the person who is a farmer through and through, whether he be a farmer who farms on a small scale or a farmer who wants to expand his farming operations. What I am pleading for is that the person who has potential should receive generous assistance. On the other hand, we should remember that there are good and well-intentioned people who unfortunately do not possess the physical capacity to be successful farmers. It will be unwise to grant such people large sums of money. If we want to make money available to people who are true farmers, we now have at our disposal the machinery to help them without delay. We trust that through this legislation we shall succeed in taking a step forward, and that when we look back a few years hence we shall be able to feel grateful because this measure has yielded good results. I thank the hon. the Minister for having introduced this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is usually a somewhat difficult task to reply to two hon. members who spoke one immediately after the other. In this particular instance, though, my task is not difficult. Because, Sir, the rather intellectual speech delivered by the hon. member for Carltonville, a speech which we very much enjoyed, was not quite relevant to the subject matter of this Bill, and in the result I do not think it merits much of a reply. The hon. member for Smithfield started off by asking whether this side of the House represented farmers. Well, I believe that there are as many farmers in my constituency as there are in his. Moreover, Sir, I believe we on this side have just as much right to speak about farmers and their problems as the hon. member has. I feel that it is quite the wrong way to start a speech on a subject such as this by querying the bona fides of the Opposition. Now, I agree with the hon. member when he says that farmers are no doubt psychologically affected by the very, very difficult conditions through which they are going. But I believe our farming community to be strong enough, tough enough, and resilient enough to overcome all these challenges they are having to meet at the present time, and I think both sides of the House are united in expressing our appreciation and admiration at the way in which the farmers are facing up to their difficulties. We feel that they should be congratulated on the way in which they are coping with the emergency in this country. I agree that a farmer must be judged by his capacity as a farmer rather than as a person who may or may not fit into the pattern of farming.

Now, Sir, I wish to state that one might well imagine that we on this side of the House are determined to murder the brain-child of the hon. the Minister, judging by the way in which our contributions to the debate have been received by the other side. Well, Sir, the hon. member for Gardens started off by saying that this side of the House welcomes this legislation. We do believe that this measure will be of value to the farming community. I for one have been involved in agricultural matters for a long time. And I do not believe that this Bill, in its present form, is everything that the farmers ask for. This is but a consolidation of existing legislation. It is an attempt to streamline organizations that have been in existence over the years. I believe that the farming community has for many years been asking for something more than just that, because of the extremely difficult situation as regards farming which exists in South Africa. I do not consider farming in South Africa to be a normal commercial risk. Therefore I do not consider that farming in this country should be burdened with the normal commercial rates of interest which one finds in industry and commerce. I think I am correct in saying that this legislation, when it is placed on the Statute Book, will be the last resort of the distressed farmer who has exhausted all his sources of credit. When he approaches the board for assistance, the merits of this case and the standard of his farming operations will be carefully investigated and considered. If his application is successful, the board will assist him at a certain rate of interest which the board feels he can carry and which is laid down in the Bill. The hon. member for Gardens has asked that something more should be made available for the man who is running into trouble and who, with the aid of timeous assistance from a Government Department, will stay out of trouble and will thus not have to seek emergency aid when he has been reduced to a critical financial position.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned about the wattle industry, an industry which is of particular concern to my constituency. Some years ago the wattle industry, like the sugar industry, was known throughout South Africa as a most prosperous one. As those who regularly read the Farmer Weekly will know, the wattle was referred to some years ago as the “weed of wealth”. I believe that in its day the wattle industry was indeed a highly profitable industry. But because of the difficult conditions prevailing in the industry today, I do not think that the ordinary farmer, even with the assistance of ordinary commercial credit, can make ends meet. What happened in the wattle industry was this. Where a man had an income of a certain amount when the industry was in a healthy condition, to-day his income is reduced to perhaps only a quarter of that amount because of a fall in the market. He is saddled with a large area of wattle trees which he has to dispose of in some way or other. The problem cannot be resolved simply by throwing the land away or burning down the trees. Wattle trees continue to grow, and the problem gets bigger and bigger every year. Every year the trees grow higher, and the problem of disposal grows more acute by the year. I believe we will experience a crisis in the wattle industry within the next few years. This will be the result of the problem of conversion. I repeat, Sir, that I do not believe that the ordinary wattle farmer who, as is done throughout the Natal midlands, engages in mixed farming—sheep farming, cattle farming, wattle farming—is in a position to pay the present high rate of interest attached to loans which are required for converting from wattle industry to something else. Should he turn to some other timber sort, he will only start getting a return in about ten years’ time. He will have to finance the new industry with the aid of a loan carrying an interest rate of 8 per cent. This is something of which we are going to have to take very serious cognizance in the very near future. There are certain, what one may term lucky, areas of the wattle belt where farmers were able to convert to the sugar industry. Perhaps I should use the word “lucky” reservedly, because I think some of these farmers now find that they are not quite as lucky as they thought they were when they first embarked upon the growing of sugar cane.

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