When the House adjourned last night, I was emphasizing the role played by agriculture in South Africa. The role played by agriculture is becoming more and more important and more and more a primary one as a result of (a) the population exerting greater pressure on the food front; (b) increasing numbers; (c) the rise in the standards of living of both Whites and non-Whites in South Africa; and (d) the decrease in the number of farmers in the rural areas. In addition to that I should like to mention that, according to the 1963 annual report of the Secretary for Agriculture, there was a total of 136,000 farmers in the rural areas of South Africa in 1950, and in 1960, ten years later, a total of 116,000. That is an alarming drop, and in saying that I do not want to suggest that I am in favour of placing more farmers on uneconomic units. We know what the evils are that have given rise to that.

In the second place I want to point out that agriculture has become a purely economic undertaking as a result, in the first instance, of technological development—that includes mechanization, fertilizing and the cultivation practices applied in agriculture in South Africa—and in the second instance, of the increased risks to which agriculture is being subjected, agriculture which is so sensitive to climatological factors, those things are beyond the control of the farmer.

In the third place I come to the rising cost of the means of production. Even though one perhaps does not have much control over that, I want to bring it to the notice of this House. We are not asking for the prices of any products produced in South Africa to be fixed above the economic value of that product. What we are asking is that a very thorough investigation be instituted into the prices and the ever-increasing costs of the means of production, because that is a cause of concern to us. I submit for consideration whether we should not perhaps revise the import duty which has been imposed on agricultural implements not manufactured in this country, and, as a matter of fact, whether we should not, in view of the importance of food production in South Africa, consider abolishing the import duty on agricultural implements altogether. We are thinking in this regard of fertilizer prices. It is well known, and I wish to point out once again, that we have no quarrel with the profit margins laid down for the fertilizer companies, who are rendering a great service to the country. But I do wish to draw the attention of the authorities to the fact that extension officers trained by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are being attracted by these private concerns, the fertilizer companies, and that in some cases they are offered double the salary which they are paid by the State. We know that the State cannot compete with private enterprise as far as the wages and salaries of such technical personnel are concerned. I want to request that serious consideration be given to revising fertilizer prices.

I know this is a very delicate point to raise, but I want to discuss the prices of bags in South Africa. It is right that we should protect a domestic bag industry and that we should build it up and strengthen it. In principle nobody has any objection to that, but if it has to be done at the farmer’s expense I want to ask that serious consideration be given to reconsidering the prices of bags—the import prices and the selling prices at home.

I submit that agriculture forms part of our infrastructure about which we have heard so much in this debate, and a very important part at that, because approximately 15 per cent of our national income derives from agriculture. While we are at the moment making provision in other fields, and in view of the indispensable role which food production plays in our defensibility, agriculture deserves the whole-hearted support and the sympathetic consideration of this House.

I want to conclude by expressing the thought that everything should be done on the part of the authorities to enable this valuable treasure belonging to South Africa, the farmer, once more to assume his rightful place, the place of honour which he won for himself in the course of three centuries under difficult circumstances in South Africa, and to enable him to secure his future in a happy South Africa.

I am sorry to interrupt the trend of the debate, but there are certain specific aspects of the Budget I should like to deal with. At the outset I should like to associate myself with the protests which have come from some speakers on this side of the House against the hon. the Minister’s proposal with regard to the discriminatory duty on the production and sale of beer. I regard this as a bad feature of the Budget, and I would appeal to the hon. the Minister in all seriousness to reconsider his proposals in this regard.

This proposal introduces a discriminatory form of taxation which is foreign to our country and which, I suggest, if not curbed, may have devastating effects on our economy and on our industrial development. It is quite obvious that the proposed additional tax is aimed at the largest brewery in South Africa. This company, we know, is controlled by South African shareholders and they naturally will be the principal sufferers under this form of taxation. It is quite wrong, to my mind, that this company should be singled out for this additional tax. To my mind, where industry is concerned, there should not be a different basis of taxation between company and company, and there should not be a different basis of taxation applying to one company vis-à-vis others. It is quite obvious that the output of the brewery and, indeed, of any business, is dependent on the standard of its products, the efficiency of its management and the efficiency of its sales organization. The Minister’s proposals in regard to this further duty in relation to beer is that it shall be calculated and graduated according to the output of the brewery, and that this additional tax is to come out of the breweries’ pockets and is not to be passed on to the consumer. Surely this can only amount to a tax on efficiency. It is a new principle which is being introduced into our taxation system. I ask the Minister to pause before proceeding with this type of discriminatory tax. It is something which should not be embarked upon lightly. I repeat that it is foreign to our system up to now. Once this discriminatory system is allowed to become part of the framework of our taxation structure, there is a grave danger that it might be applied to other industries in South Africa, and it may even be applied to persons. There may be a discriminatory tax in regard to persons. Therefore I say it is something which should not be embarked upon lightly. Industrialists throughout the country are alarmed at this new principle. They regard it as the thin end of the wedge and fear that if this form of taxation is allowed to pass there is a grave danger that it will spread and that it will ultimately apply to other sections of our industry. This fear is well founded because if this different basis of taxation can be applied to a group, there would appear to be no reason why it should not ultimately be applied to other sections of our industry. I repeat that I regard it as a bad principle. To my mind it is quite wrong that any company, because of its size or its efficiency or its volume of business or its output, should be taxed on a different basis to similar competitors. If this principle is allowed to stand, there is a grave danger that it will have a serious effect on progress and on the efficiency with which businesses are conducted.

Finally, I want to say that the amount that the Minister is likely to receive as the result of the introduction of this discriminatory tax is not sufficient in my view to justify the introduction of this new principle. In view of the repercussions that are likely to take place, I ask the Minister to reconsider his ideas.

I should also like to refer to the Minister’s proposals to increase the export duty on uncut diamonds from 10 per cent to 15 per cent. I gathered from the hon. the Minister’s statement that this is being done to help our local diamond cutting industry. I would like to say immediately that I support the hon. the Minister and the Government in their desire to help to advance the diamond cutting industry and I would be only too anxious to support any steps that the Government may take in that direction. I am extremely doubtful, however, whether the Minister’s proposal to increase the export duty is really going to help our local diamond cutting industry. I think I am correct in saying that up to the present our local cutters have engaged themselves in the cutting of the larger type of diamond, that is to say, diamonds of 1 carat and above in weight. To my knowledge they have not up to the present engaged themselves in the most difficult task of cutting the smaller stones, known in the trade as “Melees”.

It can be done.

I have no doubt that it can be done and I think our local diamond cutters should be encouraged to do that. Under the existing law the export duty in the case of rough stones exported from this country is 10 per cent. The hon. the Minister proposes that this should be increased to 15 per cent. This 10 per cent duty was introduced in order to give our local cutters a 10 per cent advantage over the oversea cutters doing the same type of business and it has served its purpose but there is a danger to which I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and I will cite one country as an example of where that danger lies. To overcome this disadvantage the United States of America has allowed rough, uncut diamonds to come into America free of duty but have imposed a 10 per cent duty on all cut stones coming in from South Africa. The Americans claim that this was done in self-defence and in order to put their cutters on a basis of parity with the South African industry. The hon. the Minister now proposes to increase the export duty from 10 per cent to 15 per cent, and there is a grave feeling that America may decide to increase its custom duty on our cut stones by an equivalent amount, bringing it up to 15 per cent. This will unquestionably have a very serious effect upon the importation of our cut diamonds into America and it may have a very serious effect generally upon the export of our cut diamonds from this country. If the hon. the Minister wishes to help and encourage the building up of a new industry for the cutting of the smaller stones—and I am wholeheartedly in favour of helping to build up this new industry for the cutting of small stones—I would suggest that the hon. the Minister might give consideration to increasing the export duty on smaller stones so as to give that advantage to this new industry which is now going to be established; in other words, that stones up to the size of, say, one carat, should be subject to an export duty of 15 per cent, leaving the position as it is in the case of the larger stones. This would have the effect of giving a real advantage to this new enterprise.

Where would the bigger stones go for cutting?

The bigger stones are being cut in this country to-day.

And the smaller ones?

The smaller stones are not being cut in this country to-day but we are equipped to do it here and my suggestion will help to protect the man who is going to embark on this new industry of cutting the smaller stones; by increasing the export duty on smaller stones, you give the new entrepreneur in that field a 15 per cent advantage.

Why cannot the smaller stones be cut here too?

It has never been done here up till now. I am not a technical man but I understand …

Other countries which are not diamond producers do it.

I am a 100 per cent with the hon. the Minister that we should try to protect this industry and I say that the way to protect it is to give the diamond cutter who cuts the smaller stones this advantage that any person outside this country importing stones must pay a 15 per cent export duty. It puts the South African man on a 15 per cent better basis; that is the point I am trying to make. I would suggest that the hon. the Minister give this matter further consideration for he would then be doing South Africa a real service and he would be doing the new branch of the diamond cutting industry in this country a great service. We are, of course, the greatest diamond producing country in the world and we should take the greatest possible advantage of that situation, and I suggest that it can be done by differentiating between the larger and the smaller stones in so far as export duty is concerned.

I want to pass on now to more general observations on this Budget. There is no gainsaying the fact that a large portion of our national expenditure is attributable to the Government’s implementation of the mandate given to the Government by the White electorate of this country in regard to’ its policy of apartheid. There can be no doubt about that. As one looks through the Estimates one realizes that in practically every branch of government administration, the expenditure is substantially increased because of the necessity of carrying out the Government’s apartheid policy. In five general elections since and including 1948, the White electorate of South Africa has allied itself to and supported the Government’s apartheid policy. Indeed in every election since 1948 the Government has been returned to power with ever-increasing majorities until to-day the Government has an overwhelming majority unprecedented in the history of this country. This surely bears testimony to the fact that the majority of the White electors of South Africa support the Government’s policy of apartheid and the manner in which that policy is being implemented. I think one must be fair and concede that that is the position. In those circumstances, therefore, I suggest that it does not lie in the mouth of the White electorate to squeal against the enormous price which South Africa is being called to pay for this luxury of apartheid, if it can be called a luxury. The majority of the White electorate is directly responsible for encouraging this policy and for the implementation of this policy. The electors have had their opportunities in five successive elections to condemn apartheid, but far from doing so the South African White electorate, consisting of Afrikaners and English-speaking South Africans, have rallied behind the Government and given their active support and blessing to this policy of apartheid. They have given the Government a mandate to act on their behalf in implementing this policy. In the circumstances therefore there is no justification whatsoever, to my mind, for any squeal from the White electorate. It is true that there was a substantial number of the White electorate who did not support the Government’s policy of apartheid, but unfortunately in a democratic country the minority has to be governed by the majority and are therefore perforce obliged to pay for the wishes of the majority. Those Europeans who supported apartheid throughout the years in South Africa must now realize the enormous costs of this policy. It appears that in the matter of Defence alone we have to find an amount of nearly R256,000,000, which amounts to 20 per cent of the entire national expenditure of this country.

What has that to do with apartheid?

I wish to pause here and say that I do not by any means condemn this expenditure. On the contrary, having embarked on this policy, a policy which unfortunately as you know, Sir, is condemned by the outside world, it is essential that South Africa should be in a position to defend itself against all forms of aggression, external as well as internal, which may result from the implementation of that policy. I feel that it is the bounden duty of the Government to take every reasonable step to defend South Africa against external aggression or internal uprising. It is a duty which I think the Government owes to its citizens, and the Government would be failing in its duty if it did not take every precaution to provide for the safety of the country and its citizens. The White section of our population should therefore not complain if they are called upon, as they are now being called upon, to bear the enormous costs of defending South Africa against threats resulting from this policy of apartheid. As I have said, this policy has been endorsed by the majority of the White people and in those circumstances we must all share in the cost of implementing it. But I want to go on to say this: What possible justification can there be for asking our non-White population to contribute towards expenditure incurred in implementing the Government’s policy? The non-White people have had no say whatsoever in determining Government policy, and certainly in so far as apartheid is concerned, the Coloured people have not by any stretch of imagination given their blessing or their support to this policy. On the contrary, we know that the Coloured people condemned this policy ab initio. What justification is there then for compelling our Coloured citizens to make even their meagre direct or indirect contributions towards the enormous expenditure which has to be incurred in carrying out the Government’s policy? This to my mind is where this Budget is so unfair and unconscienable, and I think it is unconscienable when you calmly reflect on the situation in so far as the Coloured people are concerned. Why should the Coloured man who, Heaven knows, has to struggle to make ends meet, be called upon to contribute towards the expenditure involved in implementing a policy which differentiates against him and in respect of which he has had no say whatever? What justification is there for imposing upon our Coloured people this direct or indirect form of taxation? In all conscience, the Coloured man already finds it extremely difficult to cope with the ever-rising cost of living, the ever-rising cost of essentials such as meat and vegetables and other necessities of life. This Budget goes even further because by way of indirect taxation he is now called upon to pay increased taxes on his cigarettes, tobacco and beer, etc. I want to say that I am of the considered opinion that the Government should evolve some basis of differentiation. The Minister has already done this in relation to taxation on companies. There should be some form of differentiation so that the Coloured people of this country will not be called upon to contribute towards the cost of implementing a policy which they condemn holus bolus.

I want to deal now with a matter of policy which greatly concerns the Coloured people of this country. Sir, it is almost a month since this Parliament foregathered for this Session, but not a word has been said by the Government as to its intentions with regard to the forthcoming Coloured e lections. Under the existing law the Coloured Representatives in this House retire by effluxion of time on 3rd October, 1966. One would have hoped that by this time the Government would have been able to make a declaration of its policy in regard to the question as to whether there is to be an election for the Coloured people; whether there is to be a re-constitution of the Coloured Council and whether there is to be an election of the new Coloured Council and, if so, when? Sir, not a word has been heard from the Government with regard to any of these important matters. All that the Coloured people have heard is conflicting reports emanating from the Press, both the Nationalist Press and the English-language Press. These reports indicated at first that there would be no Coloured election this year, that the Government would extend the period of office of the present representatives for a further 12 months; that during the interim period there would be a re-delimitation of constituencies; that the Voters’ Rolls would be completed and that an election for the Coloured Council would then take place; that the constitution of the Council would be changed so as to enable the Council to nominate its European representatives in this Parliament. Then there were more conflicting reports but up to the present we have not had one official word from the Government in regard to these matters. Sir, these are important matters. We are nearing the end of August. The period of office of the present Coloured Representatives in this House is drawing to a close. Surely it is time for the Coloured people to know where they stand. Their political rights, as we all know, are very limited indeed. They have been considerably diminished since the days when they were on the Common Roll with their fellow South African citizens. Surely even these diminished rights should be respected. Surely they are entitled to know what the Government has in mind for them.

Speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge the Government not to extend the life of the present Coloured Representatives in this House. I would urge the Government, with all the emphasis at my command, to allow these Coloured elections to take place in the ordinary normal course and allow the Coloureds to return to this House Europeans to represent them as hitherto. On a personal note I would like to say that I speak on this matter impartially because I have no intention of submitting myself for re-election. When I was re-elected to this House in 1961, I told my Coloured friends and supporters that I would not be seeking re-election at the end of my period of office. By that time I would have served more than 20 years in this House and I felt that the time had come for me to graciously withdraw. I have reiterated this decision on several occasions in this House and nothing has happened to make me change my mind. Therefore I can speak without being personally interested. I feel, Sir, that it would be a grave mistake for the Government to interfere with the limited and already greatly diminished rights of the Coloured people, and I would urge them to let them have an election when the time comes. I feel that they should be given the opportunity of having their election in accordance with the law as it presently stands, at the proper time, to enable them to elect to this House whoever they wish to represent them. I say this because I feel that South Africa can ill afford to once again be besmirched by the suggestion that will undoubtedly come that the Government once more has interfered with even the remnants of the Coloured people’s electoral rights. I would therefore urge the Government to allow these elections to take place in the normal course of events.

Mr. Speaker, I know very well the feelings of the Government in regard to the possibility of the Coloureds returning to this House as their representatives, members of a political party who were ignominiously rejected by the European electorate and who are now, as a last resort, seeking the suffrage of the Coloured people in order to find a forum for themselves in this House. The Government has repeatedly made it clear through statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister himself and by the former Minister of Coloured Affairs, of what their feelings are in regard to that matter, and that they do not wish to allow members of this particular political party in these circumstances to ride on the back of the Coloured people. I want to say quite seriously that there is a great deal of support for the Government’s action in that regard from a very large section of responsible Europeans in this country. I say here that I am very conscious of the harm that might ultimately be done to the Coloured people if they were to be represented by these people. I am very sorry indeed that the hon. member for Houghton is not here this afternoon. I was hoping that she would be here and I tried to ask her to be here because I intended to tell her that I intended speaking as I am doing this afternoon. She after all, is the sole representative in this House of the political party concerned and I would have liked her to have heard my views on this matter. I want to say even in her absence that what I say here in no way must be regarded as a reflection on this lady. I have the greatest admiration for her courage in fighting in this House a lost cause in so far as the White electorate of this country is concerned. She after all did submit herself to a White constituency for election to this House and was duly elected on two occasions. It is true that on the last occasion she had the support of two very eminent and influential South African citizens in the person of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer and the other in the person of a gentleman by the name of Mr. B. J. Vorster, the Minister of Justice. The House will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Minister of Justice in the course of the last election at a political meeting held on the East Rand, said—he is reported to have said—that he regarded Helen Suzman as being worth four U.P. candidates. His support was bandied right throughout the constituency, with the result that she was reelected.

She also had the support of the United Party. They put up the weakest candidate against her they could find.

Leaving that aside, the hon. member for Houghton has been returned by a White constituency in terms of our law. But the same does not apply to the other members of her Party who have been ignominiously rejected by European voters and who now wish to enter this House with the aid of the Coloured people. I repeat that I know the feelings of the Government in this regard, and frankly I sympathize with this outlook. It seems to me quite wrong that Europeans who have been rejected on several occasions by the White electorate and who had in many instances to forfeit their deposits in the course of these elections, should now seek to come into Parliament on the backs of these unfortunate Coloured people in order to make this House a forum for the advancement of their peculiar political theories. I think it is quite wrong and unconscionable, and I want to say that it is unconscionable when one remembers that in 1959, and again in 1961, when we were engaged in Coloured elections in this country, these same people who are now seeking to come in with the support of the Coloured people declared that they would have no part in the Separate Representation of Voters Act and they advised the Coloured people to boycott these elections and not to take any part therein. When we realize this, then we realize the seriousness of this political opportunism which now presents itself to these people. So I say that I sympathize with the Government’s point of view in this matter, and I think the Government is right in trying to prevent these people taking advantage of our Coloured people in that regard. A great responsibility rests upon these men who are now seeking the sufferage of these Coloured people because in the ultimate they may be doing a great disservice to the Coloured people of this country.

Do you think they care?

I want to conclude by saying that I feel that to deny, even having said that, the Coloured people the right to have elections, would bring far greater harm to our country. I am therefore of the considered opinion, Sir, that despite the harm which may result by the Coloured people making the wrong choice—and I do not think they will, because I think gradually they are realizing that they should not allow themselves to be led up the garden path—but even if we were to take that risk, my feeling is that that harm is far less than the harm that may be done to the good name of South Africa if the Government does not allow this election to take place when it is due in terms of our law. Under those circumstances it is my earnest appeal to the Government, and particularly the hon. Minister of the Interior, to allow these Coloured elections to take place in accordance with the law as it presently stands.

The hon. member for Peninsula will forgive me if I do not enter into the matters raised by him. In the short time at my disposal I want to deal with matters affecting my Department.

I want to say in the first place, Mr. Speaker, that in the past days and weeks I have listened attentively to speeches from the other side of the House in the keen expectation that I would be able to glean some information about the real objections of the hon. members on the other side to the Budget, and that we would get some information from them in regard to their basic economic principles. But unfortunately I have to say that I am none the wiser for having listened to them, and that I still do not know to which of the large items of expenditure on the Estimates the Opposition have any objection in the sense that they want those items to be deleted from the expenditure account, and I still do not know even now—and I do not think any one of us knows—what the fundamental principles are on which the Opposition wants to base the economy of our country. Every time we have asked the Opposition in connection with inflation or any of those problems, “What would you do now, and what is your standpoint?”, they have simply told us, “We are not in power, you are the Government, you have to find the solutions”. But they cannot get away from it so easily, Mr. Speaker, because if they adopt that attitude they imply that they have now reconciled themselves to the idea of remaining in opposition for ever, because only if one believes that one will always for the rest of one’s existence, remain in opposition, only then does one remain negative in one’s attitude and only then does one make no attempt to put forward positive suggestions and proposals. In its attitude to this Budget the Opposition is like the man who went to church for the first time. When someone asked him what the minister had said in his sermon, he replied, “He spoke about sin”. “What did he say about sin?” The reply was, “He was against it”. That is about all we can get from the hon. members on the opposite side. But in addition to that, they are so extremely inconsistent in their statements. One speaker puts a case and then another member of the Opposition comes along and opposes him. Indeed, we often found the same speaker contradicting himself. I shall mention a few instances. On the one hand we have been told of the tremendous objection to the large amounts to be taken from the pockets of the consumers. On the other hand we have heard about the enormous amounts which the State is now going to bring into circulation again. The Opposition should now tell us in explicit terms what their objection to this Budget is. Do they object to the fact that money is going to be withdrawn from circulation, which will therefore have a deflationary effect, or do they object to the fact that money is going to be put into circulation, which is going to have an inflationary effect? They should tell us what the difference actually is if a Government takes the same amount of money from the pockets of people as it puts back into the pockets of people. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is not present at the moment, nearly moved us to tears last year when he referred to the increasing profits allegedly being made by companies, and he asked us to do something in respect of those profits. This year, again, we had a wailing and lamentation here when the hon. the Minister of Finance announced that he was going to take a portion of those profits from the companies by way of increased taxation. In a previous debate the hon. member for Yeoville spoke about import control and attacked me in particular, by saying that it was because I had applied import control so strictly that the Railways had not had sufficient goods to transport, which had been to the detriment of the Railways. The hon. member for Yeoville said that a wise government would not have applied import control in that way and then its Railways would not have suffered thus as a result. In other words, we should relax import control. On the 15th July that same hon. member wrote the following in the Argus in regard to the proposals of the Minister of Finance—

On the one hand he attacks us for applying import control, and on the other hand he attacks us if we want to relax import control.

Hon. members spoke here in the Railway debate and expressed tremendous confidence in the future of our country. They held it against the hon. the Minister of Transport that he allegedly did not have that confidence. They alone had the confidence. On two occasions on which he referred to me in his censure motion, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition blamed me for having said, “Prosperity will prevail”. What is the standpoint of those hon. gentlemen?

Spend for prosperity.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, “Spend for prosperity”. I say to the hon. member for the umpteenth time that if the circumstances were such as prevailed at that time, I would say, “Spend for prosperity”, as I would say at this stage, “Save for prosperity”. Speaking of prosperity, I find that there is one thing which is apparent from all these discussions and that is that hon. members can no longer deny that under this Government South Africa has experienced prosperity such as it has never known before. They denied in the past years that there was any prosperity. Then they failed to see it and did not want to see it. The Leader of the Opposition jeeringly referred to it as “the so-called boom of short-lived duration”. But now they say that we have bungled and mismanaged the boom and that we have made a hash of it. They therefore admit, in other words, that there has in fact been a boom and that up to now there has been prosperity of an order such as we have never known before, a prosperity in which our economic development has taken place at a more rapid rate than that in most countries in the world. What is more, hon. members on the opposite side know that everybody knows that, that the entire world knows that. Throughout the world this remarkable economy and increasing economic development in our country is being written about in articles, periodicals, books and supplements. That is to-day axiom number one. namely the tremendous economic growth of South Africa under this National Party Government during the past five years.

HON. MEMBERS: In spite of them.

They make use of childish arguments, arguments that one may expect in a standard six debating club in a primary school. Surely it is childish to suggest that a government which has been in power for 18 years cannot be responsible for the economic development in its country? But let me tell them to what extent this Government is in fact responsible for it. This economic growth has not simply appeared out of the blue; it has not come like manna from Heaven or like an apple which has simply fallen into our laps, but it has been brought about by the labour, initiative, exertion and planning and through the faith and confidence of this National Party Government. It has come about as a result of the upholding of the economic principles of free enterprize and recognition of the profit motive and through our positive attitude towards industrial development and protection; it has been brought about by the creation of an infra-structure, which was neglected during the war and which we inherited in a neglected state in 1948. We have introduced new postal and telegraph services and telecommunications and we have strengthened our country’s transport services, not only on land, but also in the air and on the sea. We have increased our educational facilities and power supplies. In addition there is what has been done in the field of housing. Without all those services an economy cannot grow, and the money spent in order to bring about this growth has in turn served as a stimulus to further development. There is what has been done in connection with State corporations. It is this Government which, by means of Iscor and through the expansion of our steel production, laid the foundations for our steel and engineering industry and for our motor component industry. There has been phenomenal growth as far as this last item is concerned, and a large percentage of our motor cars already have a South African content of 45 per cent to 55 per cent. There is a possibility of motor cars having a South African content of as much as 70 per cent within a few years.

We are still far behind Australia.

They have a larger population than we have.

How did they get that population?

Through immigration.

There is the provision of power which has enabled our industries and mines to grow. As a matter of fact, per capita of our population we consume as much power as the quantity of power consumed per capita in Western Europe. There is Sasol, which laid the foundation for our chemical industry, which in turn has led to the establishment of plastic industries/ pharmaceutical industries, synthetic rubber industries, and so forth, for a diversified chemical industry with many ramifications. Then there is Foskor, which is soon going to make the country completely independent of imported phosphate. It is this Government which is making use of State corporations to provide points of growth in our industrial development and which is employing the money invested by means of those corporations to serve as stimuli to further industrial growth. It is the investigation of deficiencies in our industrial life and our endeavours to supplement those deficiencies which have promoted growth, whether in connection with motor cars, textiles, paper, synthetic rubber, or whatever. We find that dozens and dozens of these new industries spread all over the country to-day, industries which have been established as a result of the policy of this Government. Hon. members have called for a long-term policy. Here is the long-term policy, and not a long-term policy in theory alone, but one which has been proved in practice during the past years.

However, we have also had our problems. Indeed, we do not deny that there are problems. In fact, every growing country has its problems. We see it in Europe and America to-day. But we are grateful that the problems we have are problems arising from prosperity and growth. If we have to choose to-day between, on the one hand, an economy which is stagnant and on the decline, an economy with decreasing production and declining prices and increasing unemployment, and on the other hand, an economy with increasing prices, increasing wages and increasing employment, then I prefer the problems arising from the second alternative to those arising from the first. The Government took timely action when it saw the problems of inflation and increasing prices. It stepped in and applied measures such as credit control and others, measures which proved successful until something occurred which we had not anticipated, namely a tremendous inflow of foreign capital. But to me even that is a sign of growth and confidence. To me the fact that foreign investors have over a short period sent an amount of R290,000,000 to South Africa is proof of the confidence existing in the economy of South Africa and of their faith in the way in which this country is being run in the economic sphere by this Government. As a matter of fact, one of the problems as far as combating inflation is concerned is not the weakness of our economy, but its very strength and impetus. Our problems of inflation lie in the fact that our economy is growing so rapidly and that it does not want to allow itself to be restricted. It wants to grow more rapidly than we want it to. We have this inflation to-day because the faith in our future is so strong and because the optimism and the confidence are so great and because the forces that make for progress are so strong that it is almost impossible for us to keep them in check. The economy of South Africa is almost like a young horse that refuses to submit to the rein.

The problems with which, we are faced-to-day are not problems which spring from decline, from weakness, or from stagnation and recession, but they are problems which spring from prosperity, growth and progress in the economic sphere. The hon. member over there who is laughing so cynically is apparently under the impression that to laugh cynically is: a sign of intelligence.

The Government has been accused of having acted too late. In this connection the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used the words “Too late, too little”. Now I want to call him to account and ask him what he meant by the words “too little and too late”, Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mean by that that the Government did too little in connection with combating inflation and that the measures which it took were not drastic enough, but should have been more drastic?

It was financing too much with Treasury bills.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not try to evade the issue now.

I shall reply to you.

When? It is of no avah to use clichés like “too little, too late” here. We have every reason to infer from what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the measures taken by the Government were not drastic enough.

But you yourself have said that the measures have nut helped.

Then there are those who say that we should have acted sooner.

Yes, before the election.

The measures announced by the Minister of Finance could not have been announced earlier, because the circumstances had not yet justified such a step. The circumstances to justify such a step did not exist in the second half of 1965. Hon. members ought to know that. If you take measures when circumstances are not yet ripe for them you can do the economy of a country more harm than good. When you apply measures which are too drastic to a finely balanced economic mechanism you may lead your country into a depression from which it will not be able to recover easily. Hon. members know full well that the measures introduced last year had begun to take effect and that the economy had begun to ease up by the end of the year. As a matter of fact, it was only in the second half of this year that we again had an upswing. Hon. members who are so fond of listening to experts should listen to the latest “Opinion Survey Report” of the Economic Investigation Bureau, in which it is stated: “This survey supplied evidence that a fresh inflationary upswing in the South African economy was simmering and that these measures were taken just in time to prevent an unhealthy development.” Here we have the opinion of experts. If we had acted too soon, we would have prevented the establishment of valuable production apparatus, apparatus which was created during that period. Numerous factories were opened in that period and are already producing. If we had stepped in too quickly, we might have prevented them from being established. This production capacity, which is an asset to our country, is now beginning to function in order to supply the domestic demand for goods. At the same time they are producing goods for the foreign market as well.

Then there is the problem of the cost of living, which has been touched upon so often in this debate. I admit that there has been an increase in this regard, that there has been an increase in retail prices which is reflected in the cost of living of every citizen. I also have to admit that the figure in this connection for the past one and a half years has been particularly high, but at the same time I want to point out to hon. members opposite that they least of all have any reason for reproaching us for that. I chance to have a cutting here from the Sunday Times of 8th February, 1948.

Is it mere chance?

The hon. member who is laughing now will stop doing so in a moment. In this cutting it is stated that “Your cost of living has risen by 69 per cent in eight years”. The average increase was therefore 8½ per cent per year under the régime of the United Party. I also have here a report which appeared in the Star in May, 1948, in which a memorandum prepared by the S.A. Trade and Labour Council is reported upon. The report on that in the Star reads as follows—

But there was a war on at the time.

Hon. members opposite justify the increase of 8½ per cent in the cost of living by saying that there was a war on at the time. We on our part are trying to justify the increase of 3½ per cent by saying that it is the result of prosperity and growth. The time which I have at my disposal for my speech unfortunately does not permit me to go into this matter in detail.

Hon. members also asked whether we could give any guarantee that the value of the rand would be the same at the end of the year as it was at the beginning of the year. I say that we shall not give any such guarantee. Neither would hon. members opposite be able to give any such guarantee, nor would any government in the world. We know that the trend throughout the world is towards a steady increase in the cost of living and a steady decrease in the purchasing power of money. But that is not all. The question is not whether we are going to have a continual increase in prices, but whether the income and productivity of the people are going to keep pace with that increase. There may be a further rise in prices. Naturally that is something that one wants to keep in check, but it is not the real factor after all. The real question is whether the increase in the income of the people is commensurate with or more rapid than the increase in prices. Here I want to mention a few figures. The real gross domestic product increased by 5 per cent during 1965—in other words, as recently as last year the real gross production in South Africa increased by 5 per cent. Our productivity increased and the real income per capita increased by 2.4 per cent as compared with 3.5 per cent in the previous year. In other words, the real income of South Africans, taken as an average, actually increased by approximately 3 per cent during that period. South Africans could therefore spend an average of 3 per cent more per annum on goods and services. If we look at the wage index, we find that in the case of the most important industries in the country this index has risen much more rapidly in the past years than has the cost of consumer goods. It is therefore a matter of looking not only at the prices of goods, but also at the increase in the income earned by our people, an increase which has been more rapid than the corresponding increase in the price of goods. In 1965, when our people allegedly had such a hard time, the real expenditure on consumer goods increased by 3.9 per cent per capita—in other words, the South African could on an average consume 3.9 per cent more than during the previous year. In addition there is personal savings, which increased by 49.1 per cent in 1965. We know that cost of living is a factor which we must keep in mind, but if the increase in the cost of living is such a tremendous factor as hon. members opposite are trying to make out, how does one explain the fact, Sir. that the real income per capita increased and that the real consumption per capita increased by 3.9 per cent and personal savings by 49.1 per cent?

I want to conclude with the question, “What about the future?” Some hon. members have expressed the fear that the measures taken by the Government may be too drastic and may land our country in a depression from which we will not be able to recover easily. My reply to that is that I have no fear of that. I have confidence in our country; I have confidence in the riches of our country, in our people, the workers and entrepreneurs, and in the resilience of South Africa, which will enable it to pull itself together again should any difficulties arise. If it should happen that these measures or whatever measures cause too sharp a decline in the growth rate of our economy, the Government has its plans ready. In the private sector there are numerous plans which cannot be put into effect at the moment, but which can be taken out of the drawer at any given moment to be put into effect. If it should happen that private enterprise fails to do its duty, then the Government has its plans, its blueprints, its projects and its intention which it did not want to carry out in this period. But if the time is ripe it will take them out of the drawer with the object of putting them into effect. It is much easier to-day than in the past, not to eliminate cyclical fluctuations altogether, but to spread them more evenly. All the modern means required for that purpose will be applied by this Government. I believe that once we have passed through the present period of consolidation and stabilization, a stage through which we have to pass in order to remain sound, we shall experience a period of 25 years and more of such splendour and prosperity in the economic sphere as we cannot picture to ourselves even in our imagination. This period of 25 years and more will bring to South Africa an economic growth such as we can hardly dream of at the moment. In spite of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, I believe that prosperity will prevail.

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this House I unfortunately will not be able to respond to the hon. the Minister by producing some cuttings which have become a little yellow with age, but I do want to say to him that I can remember my early days in the Eastern Cape when I was warned that if one chooses to ride a lively horse, one must make certain that one can stay in the saddle. At the present moment we have a Government which is claiming all the credit for the boom and the prosperity, but seems to regard itself as not responsible for the consequences of the inflationary tendencies which are now besetting us.

I want to examine one or two matters which have been raised during the course of the debate which I think are germane to the discussion of our economic position at the present moment. The one is the necessity for a reduction in the cost of production. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad referred to it in the agricultural sector, but I want to deal rather with the industrial sector. The second requirement is the necessity for increased productivity, and having achieved or claiming to have achieved increased productivity, the adequate extension of markets to absorb that increased productivity.

If one looks at the costs of production, I must immediately refer to the additional tax imposed on petrol. The Minister, in announcing an increase in the tax on petrol, at least evidenced some degree of hesitancy and almost of apology for having done so, and his attitude can be well understood. It is not an additional burden which can lightly be put aside as being of no consequence in our national economy. It is not a burden which can be avoided, as was suggested by the hon. member for Ceres when he said one must just stop driving one’s motor car on Sunday afternoons and then one does not have to pay the additional petrol tax. On 19th August the hon. the Minister was good enough to furnish us with some information in reply to a question I put to him, and that information was very interesting. In the Estimates of Revenue which we have before us the motorist’s contribution to our national income is not very clear. There is not disclosed what amount is obtained by way of customs duties. It is not separated or identified in any way in the general revenue from customs, but it appears that excise duty will produce an increased amount this year. Whereas in 1965-6 an amount of R22,100,000 was gained from excise duty on petrol, this is to be increased by no less than 50 per cent during the coming year, that is by R11,900,000, to a total of R34,000,000, excise duty on petrol. Of this amount, the Minister has indicated, R9,000,000 will be as the result of the additional taxation and the balance will be from the refineries which are now commencing operations in South Africa. But that is not the final picture of the contribution which the users of motor vehicles are being asked to make to our economy. We find in Part II of the Estimates that by way of a direct accrual to the National Road Fund, there is an additional sum of R44,000,000. The uncamouflaged, stark fact appears from the reply the Minister gave me, namely that in 1965-6 the users of motor vehicles contributed no less than R113,000,000 to our national income, and with the increases this year that figure will now go up to R125,000,000, or 10 per cent of the total revenue according to the Estimates before us.

Now, who is to pay this amount? Surely the hon. member for Wolmaransstad yesterday was drawing the long bow when he said the motorist was quite happy to pay for our fine roads, because this amount of R125,000,000 is not spent on roads. Let me remind the House of the facts that were given by the hon. member for Kensington, namely, that 5 per cent of the petrol is used by the State, 37 per cent is used by the private sector, and 58 per cent by public transport, commerce and industry. In other words, 58 per cent of this burden of R125,000,000 has to be absorbed by commerce and industry and public transport. But the burden on the individual motorist does not end there either, and it must be remembered that the motor vehicle which is not a luxury but an essential in our industry and in our every-day life. The motorist does not have his taxation stopped at that particular stage, because of this national revenue, as I have indicated, only R44,000,000 is made available for roads. I want to give the instance of the Cape Province with which I am conversant. The Cape Province will need more money. We now need to build roads in the Cape. The latest figures I have are for the year 1963-4. The total expenditure in the Cape was R35,000,000 on roads, and the National Transport Commission’s subsidy was R11,000,000. So the motorist was asked again in the Cape Province to pay some more, and he contributed a further R9,000,000 by way of motor vehicle tax, and as a property owner he contributed by way of rates so that the local authority could bear its share of this burden of the cost of road construction. This chain of taxation obviously has an important impact on production costs and on cost of living, and it is an impact which cannot be lightly pushed aside by saying, “What is a cent on a gallon of petrol?”

Having dealt with that matter, let me turn to the other point. There is one other aspect which appears to me to indicate a lack of planning on the part of the Government. One sees this when one turns to the question of extension of markets. I looked forward to hearing the Minister of Economic Affairs addressing us this afternoon. I thought he was going to tell us something about the planned expansion of the markets for the benefit of our industries, but we heard nothing of that. We heard the hon. member for Ceres the other day telling us—and I quote his words—“Ons is besig om die werkswinkel van die hele Vasteland te word”. Sir, if he had commenced his statement by saying, “Ons behoort besig te wees”, he would have had the support of all sides of the House; because to say we are busy becoming the workshop of the Continent of Africa is an extravagant claim. I want to ask the Minister of Finance, who shakes his head, to look at the present position. Surely there are practical and realistic methods of increasing our national income without increased taxation and without the threat of increased inflation. Surely greater productivity with a greater volume of exports is what should be planned and what we should be aiming for. It is a method which has been advocated with great force over a long period of time. I would like to remind the House of the remarks which have been made by leading South Africans. We have the president of the S.A. Foundation saying in June of this year, as reported in the Cape Argus, “South Africa should try to convince the new states of Africa that she was prepared and ready to help them and that this was in their own interest”. That sentiment was followed by a statement in an address given by Prof. Sadie, Professor of Economics at Stellenbosch University, also in June, when he said: “South Africa should exchange diplomatic representatives with other countries in Southern Africa and help to develop the area as a common market”. I readily concede that the African market is not unlimited. Dr. Van Eck made reference to this fact at a seminar which was arranged by the S.A. Foundation with the Californian Institute of Technology a few years ago, when he said: “Africa cannot become our main market. It has not got the purchasing power”. It is quite correct that it cannot become our main market, but Prof. MacCrone at the same seminar went on to say that Dr. Van Eck was quite right in emphasizing the tremendous achievements of this country in this field since the war, and this idea that we have reached the take-off point in our economy now is really a remarkable phenomenon, but when you take the rest of Africa, situated as we are at the lower end of Africa, the whole of the rest of the continent should be one of our major export markets.

But what does one find when one examines the Budget before us? If one looks at the facts as they appear in the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics issued by the Department of Census and Statistics, we find that in 1963 our exports to the countries on the African Continent totalled R107,000,000, and our imports from those countries totalled R79,000,000, leaving us a favourable balance of R28,000,000. But what happened the following year? There was not growth but a falling off in that position, because in 1964, although our exports increased to R113,000,000, our imports increased by an additional R10,000,000, and the favourable balance in our favour was reduced. Our present position is that apparently we are to coast along as far as the African markets are concerned for the next twelve months, with no additional planned effort to extend that market for our industrialists. In the Estimates we find that the Department of Commerce and Industries, which should be expanding its endeavours to capture that market, has planned no extension whatsoever, and we are to continue with three trade representatives in the whole of the African Continent outside the Republic. We have representation in Salisbury, Lourenço Marques and Angola. Surely if the Government wishes to counter inflation, one of the ways is to see that this market in Africa is exploited and captured to the greatest possible extent. But we carry on with three trade representatives on the whole of the continent. Surely the hon. member for Constantia is correct when he moved in his amendment that this Government had no plans for our future economy. This surely underlies the fact that here is the market on our doorstep, which apparently is being neglected. It seems that this neglect is a serious one, and I do hope that the Minister will be able to indicate to us, perhaps at a later stage, that there are definite and practical plans directed towards improving this position.

How do you suggest increasing exports to countries which are boycotting you?

Get a new Minister.

The Minister knows that the market is there. We are doing a measure of trade. We are now dealing with Malawi to a very small extent. We are also trading behind the Iron Curtain. I am sure that our industrialists are not going to sit back and accent from the Minister that it is quite impossible to open up trade relations on the Continent of Africa.

I did not say it was impossible.

I take note of the fact that the Minister is apparently telling us that he and his Government can do nothing in this regard.

Officially you cannot.

That shows a degree of despair which will not be of much encouragement to industrialists, nor to the taxpayer who will now be told that we cannot increase our markets but that we must just pay increased taxes.

The hon. member for Green Point will pardon me if I do not react immediately to a few of the points made by him, but I hope to come back to them later. One United Party speaker after the other have tried to present themselves as the champions of the South African man in the street. They have been trying these tactics both inside and outside this House for many years and all the elections since 1953 have shown that the people do not believe them. I want to make the accusation to-day that the Opposition has made no small and unimportant contribution towards effecting the inflationary trend in South Africa. You will remember, Sir, that the first signs of inflation became noticeable towards the middle of 1964, and early last year, in January, or within six months after the first signs of inflation, the Prime Minister warned the country and made an appeal to the population and to the trade unions to display responsibility and care in their wage demands. But it was the Opposition who told the country both inside and outside this House, in view of the provincial election and also in view of the general election, that the Government wanted to peg wages and they really became the loudest agitators for higher wages. Both inside and outside this House they were actually louder agitators last year than the trade unions themselves. We know that that has led to wage increases which brought more than R100,000,000 into the pockets of the workers last year. I am not unsympathetic towards the workers but that was a major contribution towards the inflationary trend with which we are now struggling.

I want to go further. Hon. members will remember that the former member for Um-hlatuzana rose and on behalf of that side of the House suggested that the Government should introduce cost-of-living allowances. Everyone knows that the sound basis for wage increases is to couple such increases to increasing productivity. To effect automatic wage increases corresponding to the rise in the cost-of-living index is something which is usually done when inflation has reached such heights in a country that trade unions and the leaders of workers no longer wish to negotiate industrial agreements; in other words, that they regard the inflationary trend as being so serious that they say: “We no longer wish to enter into long-term wage agreements; you now have to adjust wages in accordance with the rise in the cost-of-living index.” To my mind the Opposition created an inflation psychosis in our people as long ago as last year.

But I go further and say that the Opposition has acted irresponsibly, because everyone who has made a study of our economy knows that our wages have always kept abreast of the rise in the cost-of-living index. The Minister of Economic Affairs has pointed that out, but I want to say the following giving chapter and verse. Just as he has indicated that our per capita income has kept abreast of the cost-of-living index I want to show that our workers have been more than compensated for the rise in the cost of living. I want to quote a number of figures. In 1961 the rise in the cost of living was 1.9 per cent. What was the increase in wages in that year? It was 6 per cent. In 1962 the rise in the cost of living was 1.4 per cent and the increase in wages was 6.2 per cent. In 1963 the rise in the cost of living was 1.3 per cent and the increase in wages 7.7 per cent. In 1964, the first year in which inflation really began to show an upward trend, the rise in the cost of living was 2.4 per cent and the increase in wages was 9.9 per cent. Last year the rise in the cost of living was 3.6 per cent and the increase in wages 9.3 per cent.

And during the first three months of this year?

I repeat my charge against the Opposition, namely that it gave the country to understand, and is still doing so, that the people were not compensated for the rise in the cost of living. I want to return to the actual income of our workers. You will bear in mind when I draw the comparisons that between 1948 and the present time, up to the end of June, 1966—which was a month ago, the cost of living has risen by 75 per cent. I have asked the Bureau of Statistics to make a calculation for me of the real earnings of our workers, and let me begin with the various sectors of our economy. Let us consider mining and take the 1948 calendar year as basis. At the end of 1964 the average earnings of the White worker had increased by 138 per cent. By 1965 these average earnings had increased up to 155 per cent. Within a year therefore they had increased from 138 per cent to 155 per cent. Up to 1964 the average real earnings of a White mineworker had increased up to 46 per cent, and in 1965 up to 50 per cent. Even last year, with the strong inflationary trends, there was still a greater increase in the wages than in the cost of living. Where their real earnings had shown an improvement of 46 per cent at the end of 1964, their financial position had improved by 50 per cent at the end of last year.

But what about 1966?

I have just said that since 1948 cost of living had risen by 75 per cent. In other words, these figures can never be wiped out. Let us consider the manufacturing industry. In this case the increases are even higher. With the year June, 1947, to June, 1948, as basis, the average earnings of a White worker in the manufacturing industry increased by 160 per cent up to the end of the 1964 calendar year. In that time his real earnings increased by 54 per cent. In other words, his financial position had improved by 54 per cent in comparison with 1948.

At the end of 1965, one year later, average earnings had increased to 180 per cent, an increase of a full 20 per cent, and the real earnings had increased up to 60 per cent. In other words, the financial position of one’s factory worker in this country had improved by 60 per cent at the end of last year in comparison with 1948, and his real earnings had increased by a full 10 per cent from 50 per cent to 60 per cent.

Take the position of the railway worker with the financial year ended March, 1949, as basis. The percentage increase in the real income of the White railwaymen at the end of 1964 was 35 per cent and at the end of 1965 37 per cent. We should bear in mind that at the end of last year only a very small portion of the increase of R3 5,000,000 which had been granted, was included in the calculation of this increase in his real income. If the major portion which will only be paid out this year is included in the calculations, the real income of the railwayman would be considerably higher than reflected by these figures. I need not quote further figures to you. As regards Public Servants the position is the same. In the construction industry I can quote the same figures. The entire picture is that the worker in South Africa has been more than compensated for the increase in consumer prices in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Government has done its duty. The hon. member for Green Point does not think the Government has done its duty but I want to maintain very positively that the Government has in fact done its duty in this matter. I have said a short while ago that the first signs of inflation showed themselves in 1964 and within one month after that after that inflationary trend had shown itself the first steps were taken. Within a month, already in July, 1964, the Government took its first step apart from attempting to prevail upon banking institutions to restrict credit.

In July, 1964, the Government increased the rate of interest from 3½ per cent to 4 per cent, and in December, 1964, not even six months later, the Government increased the rate of interest from 4 per cent to 4½ per cent and on 5th March, only a few months later, the Government increased the rate of interest from 4½ per cent to 5 per cent. In other words, the Government has done its duty to combat inflation from the very moment the first inflationary trends became noticeable by introducing, apart from other measures, measures to make credit scarce, to make money scarce and to encourage saving. In July of this year the Government increased the bank rate from 5 per cent to 6 per cent. I want to say that it is true that the Government has unfortunately been caught by circumstances, because the processes set in motion by this Government in 1960-1 for stimulating our economy necessitated the Government, because such a boom period came about in South Africa, to spend large amounts for expanding our infrastructure, and to-day unfortunately the Government must continue spending money because the fact is that as increases in wages follow more slowly than increases in profits one’s expenditure for providing basic services in a period of rapid growth must follow behind to try to keep abreast of that rapid expansion. Where we are now trying to stop inflation, the Government must continue spending that money in South Africa.

The Opposition has not told us how they would really effect a change in this case. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs also pointed out that the Government was caught by another circumstance, namely by a flow of capital to this country which had not been foreseen because there had been a flow of capital from this country during all previous years up to 1964. For that reason I am saying that where this position has arisen, the workers of the country may trust the Government. The Government has done its duty towards the worker and the nation of South Africa and the worker and the man in the street know that the Government’s sole aim is to protect his standard of living and that the Government is taking the necessary steps so that we may once more enter a period of prosperity in which it will once more be possible to improve his standard of living too.

Mr. Speaker, like some of the other newcomers, I should also at the start have liked to have confined myself to certain needs of my constituency but because there is another matter which is very close to my heart and which is of more general interest, I should like instead to confine myself to it. The hon. the Minister of Finance has in his Budget made ample provision for the continuation, maintenance and expansion of the Government’s welfare programme, and I want to give him the assurance that the country will, as in the past, be particularly grateful to him on this score. But just as was the case after previous Budgets, so there will now be people who will be dissatisfied with the provision that has been made for welfare services. We may classify those people into three categories. In the first place we have the politically dissatisfied persons; in the second place we have the people who derive benefit from the provision that has been made but who are not completely satisfied with the nature of the provision. In the third place we have the group who cannot understand why we find it necessary in these prosperous times to have such a comprehensive welfare programme and to spend large amounts of money on welfare work. The reason for this approach is chiefly because people have a wrong idea of the demands which are made of welfare services to-day and because they live in ignorance of the actual needs of people who are really in want and in whose interests welfare services must be employed. Mr. Speaker, there are fine chapters but there are also sad chapters in the history of our country. The sad chapters unfold to us the history of a process of impoverishment and want which prevailed in our country. The fine chapters, however, tell us of research-workers, people who studied the nature and the scope of our problems and eventually showed us the way to the solution of those problems.

We are pleased to know that the hon. the Prime Minister was one of those men who, after the Carnegie inquiry and the poor-White congresses which followed it, played a major role in putting those recommendations into practice and leading our country towards the solution of many of those problems. We know that in the past our people suffered poverty and want chiefly as a result of the effects of an unfortunate war at the start of this century, and we know that in the wake of that war followed a series of natural disasters which the people were not able to withstand, and this in its turn gave rise to a movement to the cities by people who, when eventually they arrived in those cities, were not equipped for city life. They fell into a state of social and moral neglect and poverty.

We spoke at the time of a poor-White problem and the connotation “poor-White” was associated with the Afrikaans-speaking people. But times have changed. If we make an analysis to-day of the factors which give rise to impoverishment and retrogression, which encourage dependence, we find that the process in this regard is different from what it was in the past.

While in the past the process started with economic impoverishment and then progressed towards social and eventually, mental impoverishment and neglect, the process to-day is completely different. It starts to-day with a mental deterioration. It follows the path of social neglect towards eventual economic impoverishment, and we have to deal to-day with the danger and with the problem of that mental and social impoverishment plus an economic impoverishment, a problem which creates a state of mind among our people which is far worse than the economic impoverishment which we knew in former years.

This position is so serious in more than one respect that it cannot be rectified simply by means of economic remedies. In order to help people who find themselves in this type of need and misery at the present time, to become independent, it is necessary to assist them to change their entire mental approach to and their entire view of life and in this the humanities have an almost impossible task to perform to-day. The emphasis has been changed from economic to mental and social impoverishment and, what is more, this condition is no longer associated to-day with the Afrikaans-speaking person only as was our experience in the past.

It affects all the White cultural groups in our country to-day. It is against this background that I want to resort to the unusual step, at a time of economic prosperity, at a time when our country is riding the crest of the wave of prosperity, of making an appeal for full-fledged and comprehensive welfare planning. There are a number of reasons why I wish to make this appeal at this stage. In the first place, I believe that it is absolutely necessary for us to put our welfare planning in order at this stage so that it will not be necessary for us to have to resort to measures which will make a welfare state of our country if, for reasons which we cannot foresee, we find ourselves faced with poverty and indigence once again.

There is a great difference between constructive welfare services on the one hand and the institution of welfare measures on the other hand which, although calculated to provide assistance, still actually promote dependence in a welfare state. I contend that if we delay placing our welfare planning on a sound footing until such time as we eventually find ourselves in a state of need, we shall not be able to combat the subversive and undermining ideas which a welfare state seeks to encourage.

I want to mention another reason why it is necessary to do our planning now and that is because I think that it is necessary for the State to take a good look at itself at this stage in order to ascertain whether or not it is advisable to determine in how far the distribution of a number of welfare services among various State Departments—eight or ten or even 12 departments—will have a paralysing effect upon a thorough welfare programme.

I could devote a great deal of time to indicating that there are in every Government department, besides the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, a number of matters which are, broadly speaking, actually welfare matters, but which are to-day the function of other Government departments.

I should like to deviate here for a moment and express a word of sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Prime Minister for having placed the administration of the two Government Departments of Social Welfare and Pensions and Community Development under the control of the same Minister. In saying this I want to express the hope that these two Departments will never again be separated and placed under two different Ministers because we are dealing here with two departments which cannot simply operate side by side but which are so inter-related that they have one task to perform.

I want to mention a third reason and that is that we shall have to ascertain whether the sound relationship which exists at the moment between the State and the voluntary welfare services and the religious charitable organizations—all of which are services which are heavily subsidized by the State at the present time—can be maintained and whether the subsidization of those services is adequate to enable what needs doing to be done in time of need.

The question which has to be answered in this connection is whether our entire policy of subsidization is based on strong scientific and fundamental principles or whether it is merely an incidental subsidization dependent upon the availability or otherwise of State funds.

I want to mention a fourth point, a question which we shall have to answer, and that is whether humanism in our welfare programme has not already gained such a hold that we run the risk of making those people who are already unproductive because of their dependence upon welfare services, even more unproductive.

Because of our manpower shortage and because of the need for unskilled labour I believe that it is absolutely necessary, welfare services or not, that we still draw a large number of people from this group and make them productive from a labour point of view. Research will assist us to find an answer to this question.

In speaking about research I want to appeal again for co-ordination in this particular sphere so that we shall not have bits and pieces of research being done by one or other department but research which will be co-ordinated among all Government Departments.

Another important aspect is the fact that because we have made mistakes in the development of our welfare programme in the past, and since we are now faced with the important and comprehensive task of co-ordinating the welfare planning for non-White groups as well, we shall have to learn from our experience and set those welfare services on the right track from the start. We can expect difficulty in the future if our Government Departments do not act co-ordinatingly in this regard too. When we have done these things—and these are only a few of main ideas—one way or another we shall have to find a method of informing the public about the welfare programme and long-term welfare planning of the Government to enable the people to overcome the ignorance and misconceptions that I referred to at the beginning so that this ignorance does not create a stumbling block in the implementation of an all-embracing welfare programme in the country. Mr. Speaker, the main reason why I am discussing this matter at this stage is to draw attention to the Act passed by this House last year. I am referring to the National Welfare Act which provides, inter alia, for the establishment of two important commissions, viz. the Family Life Commission and the Welfare Planning Commission. As we see the task of the Board and, in particular, the task of those two commissions, they will possibly make heavier demands of the Budget in the near future, simply because their function will be to organize research and planning on a larger scale and to implement certain schemes. I want to conclude with this thought: In the ’twenties and ’thirties we were confronted with a poor-White problem. We knew that the problem had a rural character, and research in this sphere showed us precisely where the problems lay, but the centre of gravity has moved to our cities, and, as I have already said, this centre of gravity has moved to the mental and social needs of people. The question arises as to whether the time has not come for the appointment of a second Carnegie Commission. In saying this I am very thankful to know that we have in the person of the hon. the Prime Minister someone who participated in that first difficult phase and who played such an important part in it. If then we should proceed to the establishment of what I want to call a second Carnegie Commission, which will have to give us a clear picture of the nature of our future welfare requirements, our welfare problems and our welfare planning, I am grateful to know that we have in him the person who will give us the necessary guidance from the Cabinet. We shall always have poverty and its effects with us, but we can prevent it; we can alleviate distress and we can lessen and relieve misery if we plan in good time.

It is my privilege to offer the hon. member for Westdene my sincere congratulations on his maiden speech, and on the constructive contribution he has made to the debate this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, no nation has ever become great through material prosperity without spiritual refinement. It is therefore my privilege to take up the gauntlet this afternoon for those who can make a great contribution in this regard. It is my privilege to take up the gauntlet for the visionaries of our people, for those who warm the heart of the nation, who inspire the nation and who unite the nation. I am referring to our creative artists, but in particular to our writers and our poets, who keep the flame of national tradition, national loyalty and national idealism burning in our people by means of their works, and who can thus keep our people on course, even if materially matters did not go quite so well with us in future, no matter for what reason. Numerically their strength is indeed slight, because their numbers are restricted by special aptitudes, inclinations and moulding, but they are of great importance to the community because they are the nation’s social conscience the spiritual vanguard, the people who through their work have to see to it that stagnation, and therefore decay, never afflicts that which is beautiful, virtuous and true in human values.

But where are they? We almost never see them, because only a very few of them dare to be full-time writers. Just as Jan Cilliers found himself in a surveyor’s office at one time and became a professor extraordinary in aesthetics at the University of Stellenbosch only much later so, too, large numbers of our most productive writers are at present still office clerks, teachers, lecturers at educational institutions and even housewives and farmers. The point I want to make is that it means in most cases that the writer already has a full day’s work behind him before he reaches for pen and paper, physically and mentally exhausted. Sometimes week-ends or annual leave can be used, but then at the cost of a sound family life and at the cost of the so necessary relaxation and temporary, interruption of routine and drudgery.

The fact that in so many cases the writer has two full-time tasks to fulfil has an impoverishing effect in two directions. Firstly, it reflects directly upon quality. A writer who has to put down his pen frequently for the sake of his everyday work, finds that he struggles in vain to resume his work, and that while a fairly long novel, or a short story, or a play, demands months of dedicated and sustained inspiration. Is that not the reason why our literature is at present poor in great works in which the soul of our nation, our national conscience, yes, Mr. Speaker, the heartbeat of our nation’s past, have been presented faithfully and with the correct perspective? But secondly, spending spare time on writing must result in neglect of health, the sacrifice of a sound family life and the weakening of bonds with the community. Because of the circumstances the writer and his family become estranged and therefore become strangers in the community. It is not uncommon that estrangement leads readily to social decadence, which in turn may influence the contents of such a writer’s product.

In view of what I have held up to you, Mr. Speaker, there is justification for asking: Why continue writing under these circumstances? I am not a writer, but I can imagine that to tell the true artist to stop creating would be tantamount to telling a man: “Stop breathing, and pay attention to living.” It is simply impossible to carry out such an order. The other solution, of course, is for such a person to devote himself full-time to his writing. But let us be clear on the practical implications of that. There are two possibilities. The first possibility is that such a person may find a job on the staff of some cultural publication or other. But, Mr. Speaker, one can count those publications on the fingers of one hand, and only a small number of artists can be accommodated by those means. The publication industry cannot be blamed for that, because there are definite reasons why they are limited and why they can offer a home to only a few writers. There is the question of the reading public, policy in respect of contents, in respect of variety, etc.

The second possibility is that such a person may devote himself full-time to writing books, but there again the position is not too good. As regards the Afrikaans book, it is commonly accepted that no more than 3,000 copies are printed at a time. The wholesale price of such a work is plus-minus R1, and the writer’s royalties come to 12½ per cent. If one allows for review copies and other free copies, it means that such a writer may claim an income of plus-minus R200, and that amount is not immediately available to such a person but may only be earned over a period of as much as five years. That is the reason why so few Afrikaans writers can live on writing alone.

Now the question arises: How can this rather unfavourable position be set right? Now I want to put it to the Government this afternoon for its consideration, whether steps cannot be taken to buy an ample number of all creditable works for publicity purposes abroad, particularly in the Pan-Dutch countries of our origin and in libraries in embassies and legations. In asking that, however, I want to express my appreciation for the contributions which are already made to this cause every year. The annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science mentions two amounts of R1,000 each which have been used for this purpose in the past year, and I want to express my appreciation for that.

Mr. Speaker, cannot the Government introduce the system of doubling the royalties in respect of periodicals, as is done in the Netherlands, for contributors to selected cultural publications, where the quality of the work justifies that? Cannot special offices be established here, as in Belgium, for example that of inspector of museums, where matters are arranged in such a way that that official, who has to be a promising writer or some other artist, need devote only a quarter of full-time work to his official duties, while for the rest of the year he may devote himself at leisure to his creative work? Cannot scholarships be introduced here too, as at the English universities, which may be awarded to first-rate writers? Mr. Speaker, it is customary that these people lecture on a full-time basis for only three months a year, or give only ten lectures a year. I plead that it should be considered making a contribution by these means in order to encourage our creative artists, and in particular our writers. But then I also ask whether the time has not come to establish a board for creative artists, which may make it its object to bring relief to those people, in co-operation with the Government?

I find it a pleasure and a privilege to extend to the hon. member for Springs my hearty congratulations on his first speech in this House. The hon. member posed the problem experienced especially by authors who usually do not have sufficient time to devote all their attention to their work. I am glad that the hon. member posed the problem. He also suggested certain solutions and told us what could be done to remedy the position. On that matter I have nothing to say, but the hon. member gave this House an outline of the extent of the debt of gratitude we owe those people who are at present promoting in their leisure time our culture and our language in South Africa which are so dear to us. The House owes the hon. member a debt of gratitude. I am convinced that the hon. member for Springs—with the way in which he put his case, clearly so that everybody could follow it—will still play a valuable part in this House.

I should like to return to the hon. member for Pretoria (West.) He said that the United Party was really responsible for the fact that we are experiencing inflationary conditions in our country at present. The hon. member went as far as to accuse us of being the people who said last year that this Government wanted to peg wages, of being the people who pleaded for increases, and of being the people who created the inflation psychosis in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I am not making excuses for the fact that it was indeed the United Party which pleaded for that a year or more ago, namely that there should be wage and salary increases in South Africa to keep up with the rise in the cost of living. But what I find peculiar, is this: if the United Party’s advice to this country had supposedly been wrong, according to the hon. member for Pretoria (West), how did it happen that this Government accepted that very same advice in September last year by increasing the salaries of Government officials? If the advice we gave them was so wrong previously, why were the hon. member and his Government prepared to see the necessity for wage and salary increases in South Africa? The hon. member tells us that we on this side of the House are completely negative, and he asks the same question as the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, namely: What would you have done with a Budget in the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself at present? Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether a far-sighted United Party Government would ever have landed itself in circumstances such as these in which we would have had these inflationary trends. Because, Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the opposite side know that one of the most important reasons for our having these inflationary trends, is that we have pumped a tremendous amount of money into circulation and that we encouraged the people to spend, while we did not see to it that we had enough trained workers to avail themselves properly of all the possibilities South Africa has to offer. Hon. members on the opposite side say that they are responsible for the wonderful planning there is. They planned the prosperity! But how long did they not neglect their duty of seeing to it that we obtained people, something for which we pleaded so strongly under the United Party régime and even in Opposition, namely that we had to bring more White people to South Africa? The Government cannot escape responsibility. This inflation is their baby. But they also created the circumstances which led to this condition of inflation. Not only did they have the advice of the Opposition, but also that of all the most well-known economists, people such as Dr. Anton Rupert, people such as Etienne Rossouw, people such as Frikkie Meyer, who warned this Government that we could not sustain our boom unless we saw to it that we had the trained manpower. That is why I say that they are responsible for the circumstances which were created as regards the inflationary conditions we are experiencing to-day.

I listened attentively to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. He usually puts his case well and speaks with ease and clarity, but it is such a pity that we do not have such a minister in the agricultural industry, a minister who could point out to us the wonderful progress made in our agricultural industry in the past 18 years one new company after the other has come to the fore. Wonderful progress was made. But when it comes to the agricultural industry, one does not have that picture of success, then it is a dark picture, and I find it peculiar that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs can plan so wonderfully and that his Government can plan so wonderfully as far as industrial development and commerce are concerned, but when it comes to the agricultural industry he plays second fiddle, then they are not there. And then they say that they planned the economy of South Africa! As regards agriculture, I cannot say anything but that at the present stage agriculture does not at all fit into this so-called planned economy of ours. For that reason it is essential that we should look at this Budget from an agricultural point of view.

What does the Budget contain which can create greater confidence with the farmers of South Africa? It so happens that there is an increase in food subsidies. We on this side welcome that. It is a step for which we have pleaded for a long time. We recommended a long time ago that more should be done than the Government has been doing up to now. In this manner a proper price for his product is guaranteed to the farmer. At the same time it is also brought within the reach of the consumer, or rather, the increase in price is softened somewhat as far as the consumer is concerned. For that reason we welcome the fact that food subsidies are being increased. But I want to go as far as to say that food subsidies should remain a permanent aspect of our agricultural industry, even to support the industry in times of surpluses. I know that food subsidies are at present being granted, particularly in those areas where one has shortages. Prices have been forced up and the consumer has to pay tremendously high prices. That is one of the reasons for our having subsidies, namely to narrow the gap slightly for the consumer and to relieve the burden on the consumer a little. Now I say that it should not only be used in times of shortages in order to encourage production. It can even have a good effect in times when there are surpluses.

Sir, inflation also had an adverse effect on the agriculturist in South Africa, and this Budget will affect him further in this respect. We know that essential services, of which the farmer also has to make use, will become more expensive as a result of certain taxes announced in the Budget, and it will also be an important factor in the increase in production cost. The accounts a farmer has to pay every month will show a further increase in the future. I want to go further by saying that increased prices for certain basic agricultural products did not really benefit the fanner, owing to the fact that he had insufficient quantities to sell at such prices. Owing to the drought the supply is lacking. The dairy industry in South Africa is a good example of that. The droughts over the past few years, as well as the economic policy of the Government in respect of the dairy industry, have forced many of those people to thin out their herds and in some cases to sell the entire herd. Therefore I want to make the point that the farmer cannot be expected to combat inflation. Neither did he cause it. The farmer was not responsible for the inflation we have at present. On the contrary, when others were able to make money owing to the fact that there was such a great demand for goods, stimulated also by an abundance of money, the farmer had to pay the most dearly for his production means, and the maximum volume of production was also maintained by the farmers; so much so that the supply of agricultural products considerably exceeded the demand and consequently there were surpluses accompanied by a slump in prices. The farmer was therefore not responsible for the fact that inflation developed. While other people were experiencing prosperity and able to avail themselves of the position, the position was that when the farmer increased his production, when there was an increase in the standard of living, surpluses resulted and the farmers had to be satisfied with reduced prices. Thus in a time of prosperity and inflationary trends, the farmer had to make sacrifices and had to be satisfied with a lower price, and one of the reasons for so many of them having forsaken the industry at present, is the very circumstance I have just mentioned. Therefore my conclusion is that the agricultural sector was not responsible for this state of affairs. The prosperity of other sectors and the stimulants which were present played the biggest part, not agriculture. Neither could the agricultural industry expand in an unrestrained manner. It did not have the capital for that, much less the opportunities for success owing to the uneconomic prices. I want to say that owing to the unstable position of the agricultural industry, it needs stimulants now. You see. Sir, the position of agriculture is quite different from that of the other sectors, the commercial sector and the industrial sector. Owing to its unstable position, the farming industry needs stimulants now, and it also needs stimulants because of its important role of providing in the food requirements of South Africa. I say that it will be a tragedy if we expect the agricultural industry to curtail spending further. I also want to add that there is a natural feeling of caution amongst farmers. To a certain extent the farmer learnt his lesson from the advice he received to spend for prosperity. He will not be caught twice and he will be careful in future. The same probably applies to other sectors, commerce and industry, many of which were also caught by following this advice of the Minister, namely to spend for prosperity. As I have said, agriculture is usually conservative and careful.

The Budget is important, not only for what it contains, but also for what it does not contain, and I have the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance in front of me and I have read it thoroughly. Now I want to put certain questions to him. As early as the end of 1964 steps were taken, especially be means of credit restriction, to curb spending in South Africa. At that time the hon. the Minister of Finance asked that agricultural production should not be impeded by this. But on the 8th July, this year, the banks were once again requested not to increase their credit beyond what it was on the 31st March, 1965. That was expected of the private sector. But the agriculturalist is part of that private sector, and I want to know whether the Minister still stands by the concession he made to the farmers, whether that concession still applies. I put the question for the very reason that there is at present uncertainty about this outside. We must not forget that the banks are not the only bodies which grant credit. Credit is also provided by commerce, and they are not excepted, and they want their money from the agriculturalist. I am not pleading for unrestrained credit to farmers. The hon. the Minister of Finance should merely understand that the farmer of South Africa, as far as the large majority of them are concerned, finds himself in a serious dilemma. Over and above the fact that the farmer has to produce and that at present he also has to spend more in drought-stricken areas with a meagre prospect of income, he still has to live. The point that should be made is that the trader, the owner of the garage and the grocer, who normally also give credit, have now had their wings clipped and they have to pay with money they get from their clients, and if they want to collect the money they cannot make an exception of the farmer. I have been informed that farmers everywhere, especially in the drought-stricken areas, are being asked to make arrangements for paying their accounts. Therefore, in spite of all the large amounts in the Budget, farmers are affected to a tremendous extent by the fact that other sectors are also being asked to curtail spending. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the concession he made, still applies so that any uncertainty which may exist, may be removed.

Secondly, I want to state that the farmer of South Africa finds himself in that dilemma because the other sectors are affected and they are asking the farmers to pay, and at this stage many of the farmers are not in a position to pay.

There is a second point I want to touch upon, and that is the terrible drought which still prevails outside. It is reported from all sources that the drought which is affecting the country so widely still prevails. We hear reports that bore-holes are drying up; we hear reports that stock is dying. Better grazing is not available anywhere and the Government also discourages the moving of stock. The question that now arises, is this: what about the future? If we do not have good rains in South Africa within the next month or two, I want to ask whether the Government has the means and the planning to cope with the conditions which will arise then. I want to ask the Government whether our maize supplies will last and whether they have sufficient to cope with such a situation. I want to ask what the position is in regard to lucern and other kinds of fodder. Is the Government making plans to cope with the situation? They must not tell us, as they have done before, that it is easy to be clever afterwards. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the situation, as far as agriculture is concerned, has never been as serious as it is now as a result of the drought. If they have plans to cope with these conditions they must inform the people of South Africa, who are alarmed at the position, of them. I want to say that this Government has never been faced with such a challenge. It is facing a state of emergency. Its ingenuity may be tested to the utmost in the next few months.

Mr. Speaker, there is an hon. member who made the following simple—one can almost say the inane—remark: can we make rain? Of course not. It goes without saying that we know that the Government does not have such powers. But there is at present a state of emergency in the drought-stricken areas, and I am asking the Government to announce the plans they have in the event of this drought lasting another few months. Do they have sufficient fodder at their disposal? Do they have a sufficient supply of maize at their disposal? What are their plans at present in regard to these states of emergency? [Interjection.] Sir, I am not putting the question to the hon. member. He may be a prospective Minister, but he is not a Minister yet. I am putting this question to the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, the Minister of Agricultural Economics and to the Minister of Finance. If they have plans for coping with this state of emergency, it is their duty to inform the people now of those plans. At this stage we are not interested in rebates on fodder or rebates on railage. Neither are we interested in the hon. the Minister’s plan to withdraw from farms certain tracts of land for the purpose of grazing. We have no quarrel with him about that. What we want to say is that he will not have land to which he will be able to send the stock. Neither will he have the food if the drought continues any longer. Therefore we want to know from the Minister what planning there is and what provision is being made to cope with these conditions should they continue.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that the United Party was not responsible for the inflationary conditions. I agree with him, because they had actually speculated on the opposite. They had actually speculated on the hope that there would be a depression. That has been the attitude of the United Party, particularly since we became a Republic. They made it known to the world that conditions in South Africa would be of such a nature that it would be quite unsafe for any capital inflow to this country. As a result, there was then a capital outflow and the Government had to take steps to stop that capital outflow. I do not want to elaborate on all the steps that were taken to stop the capital outflow. The hon. member is aware of the steps that were taken, when England placed South African shares on the market and South Africans bought them because the Afrikaners had faith in the future of South Africa, after we had become a Republic. You know that the unemployment figure rose after we had become a Republic, as a result of those pronouncements to the world about the conditions in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, the United Party believes that there are two possibilities open to them if they want to come into power again. When there was a world depression in the thirties, they were placed in a position to obtain the reins of Government. Another situation that may enable the United Party to come into power is when there is chaos in the country, as happened in 1939 when war broke out. I shall therefore not accuse them of being responsible for inflation, although that is also a world-wide state of affairs at present. The hon. member cannot tell me that he does not know that inflationary conditions obtaining at present are of a world-wide nature. It is true that the Government took special measures in regard to those conditions in order to restore confidence in South Africa, that confidence which the Opposition has tried to destroy in the past. The Government has therefore taken certain steps. I may just refer to the building industry, which virtually came to a standstill under those circumstances. Then the Government started the tremendous industrial development in the key industries, which resulted in tremendous development on the part of certain industries. The Orange River scheme was also developed. I should like to know from the hon. member whether he is against that industrial development, for which the Government created the climate.

No.

That is the crux of the development which took place, and which created the conditions that restored faith in South Africa, and which resulted in an inflow of capital. Now the hon. member suggests that we created a situation for which no provision had been made, and for which the necessary manpower was not available. The hon. member says that there were times when they announced that we should recruit people abroad. But under those circumstances South Africa was not ready to receive immigrants. After the development which has now taken place, however, South Africa is ready to receive immigrants without its being necessary to deprive the citizens of South Africa of their work. In the time of the United Party they tried to bring in immigrants, and they discharged citizens of South Africa to make room for immigrants. Under the present conditions in South Africa that is not necessary. As regards the immigrants we are now bringing in, the country is ready to absorb them without that happening at the cost of the citizens of South Africa. That is the vast difference between the time when the United Party held it against us that we would not bring immigrants into the country, and the time at which the National Party is now bringing in immigrants.

The hon. member said that the farmer could not share in these conditions and he said that after he had heard the Minister’s announcement we, as farmers, were actually jealous. Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member that the census figures do not bear out his statements. I shall by no means deny that the farmers are having a hard time under the present circumstances. The hon. member need not tell us what the effects of the drought have been, and what setbacks the farmers have had. But I want to tell the hon. member that he can by no means prove the statements he has made here. He merely stated that the farmers were having a hard time, and that this was an inflationary position, without proving anything. That has always been the attitude of the United Party. I am not going to elaborate on that, Sir, but I want to refer you just for a moment to the United Party’s nine solemn pledges which they made during the election. One of those pledges was:

What do they mean by that, Sir? Is the United Party going to write off that burden of debt? I do not know what they mean by that. I am not an authority on law. It may be that they meant those pledges in a general sense, but I think that if one makes promises to an individual before an election one can be prosecuted. Here they give nine solemn guarantees, and one of those solemn guarantees, which is so amusing, is that they would propose a state lottery in Parliament. They would merely propose it—that is all. But what is worse is that they would lighten the farmers’ burden of interest. How are they going to lighten that? Are they going to write it off? I want the hon. member to tell me whether they are going to write it off. That is the kind of statement the hon. member has now again made in his speech. He has tried to flush a hare, because 18 years have passed and they have still not gained a foothold among the farmers. Indeed, every one of them sitting there knows that if they had not used urban constituencies, they would not have been sitting on those benches, particularly not after the last election. That is the attitude of the United Party, as the hon. member has again shown to-day—merely to make certain statements, for example: What is the Government doing? What is the Government going to do in these circumstances? That means depopulation of the rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to refer to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said with regard to the depopulation of the rural areas. He said that after 16 years of this Government’s regime, there were 28,000 fewer White farmers on the farms than even 12 years ago. He went on to say that the Black population of the rural areas had increased. He said—

That is the kind of statement the United Party makes. May we now ask them whether they are in favour of that depopulation and the blackening of the rural areas of which the Leader of the Opposition spoke, being stopped? On the other hand he said: You must not take them away. Indeed, we know that it is their policy to bring in even more of them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about subsidies, and said that they had long been pleading for the subsidizing of certain products. Is he aware of the fact that this Government has always subsidized agricultural products?

We asked that the subsidies should be increased.

Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the Government has always reinforced and supported agricultural products by means of subsidizing, in order to keep the consumers’ prices lower? There you have a typical case, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows that. But you see, Sir, that is what the United Party is doing. It knows that the Government is planning, or has already planned. It is now pleading for something with regard to which the Government has already taken steps, and it knows that. But it still says: You see, we have pleaded for a subsidy for the farmers, so that they will get a higher price for their products.

We pleaded that more should be done.

That is the kind of attempt the United Party makes, just as the hon. member made some while ago when he talked about inflationary conditions. He then said that the United Party had long ago told the National Party to take steps. Here we have another typical case. The hon. member is now pleading for subsidizing of agricultural produce. Mr. Speaker, he knows as well as I do that the National Party has always subsidized the consumer to keep the prices of agricultural products within certain limits. All these years the National Party has been carrying out that subsidization.

The hon. member also mentioned dairy products. As far as the farmer is concerned, a pound of first-grade butter-fat costs 48 cents to-day, whereas the price of a pound of butter is 41 cents. The hon. member is now pleading for that, yet it has been done for years. He has also asked questions about credit facilities and interest restrictions. The hon. member was present this week when we discussed the Bill which provides for credit facilities and the consolidation of all planning, to make provision for special credit facilities and to lay down a restriction for interest on all loans. The hon. member is aware of the fact that those special measures have been taken. We have also received the statement on this matter by the Land Bank to the effect that all possible steps had been taken to keep interest within those limits. The Reserve Bank came to an agreement with the other banks with regard to the protection which was afforded last year. The hon. member is aware of that. If he is not aware of that, and if he has not kept himself abreast of this matter, he has failed in his duty as a representative.

You have definitely not followed my argument.

Mr. Speaker, these steps were taken with the special object of keeping the interest rates within certain limits. The hon. member said that the Government discouraged stock moving. I do not know where he heard that. [Interjections.] No, I think he was present. The Minister said: Show me one place where grazing is available. But the hon. member did not mention that. He said that the Minister discouraged stock moving. [Interjections.] I wrote down the words. The hon. member said: The Minister discourages stock moving. The Minister said: Show me where grazing is available in the country. Those were the Minister’s words. I want to repeat them to you, and I want to ask: Where is grazing available? As an ordinary member of this House I also want to tell you that we shall see to it that that stock is moved to the grazing you make available. Where is that grazing under the present circumstances? If you tell me where grazing is available, I shall undertake the transport, because I know that it is the policy of the Government to move stock to such grazing. All arrangements have already been made.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech I said that the Leader of the Opposition had accused the Government. Nobody is responsible for the drought. All possible measures have already been taken to meet the farmers under these circumstances. I now want to ask the hon. member this reasonable question: Can he, as a responsible member of Parliament, make any further recommendations to render more assistance to the farmers under these circumstances than this Government has already rendered? He need not be concerned about the maize crop. The necessary maize is available, more than in the previous year, and we thank the Lord that the crop is better than in the previous year. But I want to tell the hon. member that other measures have also been taken. I do not want to elaborate on them any further. The necessary steps have already been taken.

I further want to tell the hon. member that we are concerned about the lucerne position. But steps have also been taken with regard to all other kinds of fodder that may be available, to have such fodder collected by means of the Agricultural Union’s fodder bank, and to make it available where emergency conditions obtain. Mr. Speaker, that is the way the United Party usually presents these matters, namely to say a lot of vague things which are left hanging in the air, and then to get away with that. Like us, the United Party bears a responsibility, without ever having to supply any planning. When it does in fact suggest planning, however, that planning is unacceptable, crooked and quite unsuitable.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put the hon. member for Christiana on the right track. I was sitting near the hon. member for Newton Park. The remark he made was that grazing was not available anywhere and if grazing had been available the Government discouraged trekking with livestock. Let me say straight away, Sir, that if the Government does not discourage that it ought to discourage it. We are past the stage where we have to struggle too much with livestock being moved from one place to another under such conditions. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Christiana kicked off with a discussion on politics when replying in an agricultural debate to statements made by the hon. member for Newton Park. He referred to what the Government had done in connection with industrial development and the conditions which had been created for industrial development. May I at this stage, Sir, also include the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs? In a speech earlier on he too painted a rosy picture of the industrial potential of this country and of the country’s development programme and gave the Government the credit for bringing that about. All of us are proud that there is so much industrial development in the country. We are proud of all the associated businesses which develop from that. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks this is the only country which has such industrial development and whether there are not others which have similar or even more industrial development. When the interjection in connection with Australia was made the Minister said: “Yes, with a larger population”. Mr. Speaker, Australia does not have a large population. Australia has a population which numbers just over half the population of this country. I shall tell the Minister why some of Australia’s industries are having so much more success than ours. In the case of many of the new industries established there in which foreign capital is involved, it is their practice to impose the qualification that 50, 60 or even as much as 75 per cent of the labour force employed in those industries must be immigrant labour, so that the country’s manpower resources may not be exhausted. I want to tell the Minister that the time has arrived for him to think of doing something similar. I also address that to the Minister of Finance. Perhaps it would swell the flow of immigrants if we should have similar qualifications at some of our car assembly plants. I have visited one of the factories recently erected in Australia. At that factory the qualification imposed in this respect exceeded 60 per cent. In the painting section alone as much as 82 per cent of the workers were Italians. That is an example set by other countries which we may well follow. One should not always say that it was the wonderful Government alone that had effected this industrial growth of the country for which we are so thankful. [Interjections.] I am sure that the hon. member for Christiana will have an opportunity of addressing this House when the Vote concerned is under discussion if he can no longer do so in this debate. It is not necessary for him to keep on interjecting.

The hon. member for Christiana went further. He attacked this party about its election promises and for having said that it would endeavour to take measures in terms of which it would be possible to reduce the burden of debt of the farmer. Then the hon. member for Christiana addressed himself to the hon. member for Newton Park and said: “Do you mean to say that the interest due by farmers should be written off?” Is the total write-off of debts the sole method of reducing the burden of debt? And then he, like an hon. member who is no longer in this House, persisted asking the question: “Do you want to write off the interest?”

I was not talking about interest.

We have said over and over again in this House that funds for agriculture should be made available at a lower rate of interest than ordinary loans.

I was talking about the legislation pegging interest.

Mr. Speaker, I should rather not run the risk of having to endure the interjections of the hon. member for Christiana any longer. I want to leave him alone until some time later when I shall come to a few arguments advanced by him.

This remarkable Budget makes provision for a deficit of R145,000,000 of which amount R53,000,000 is to be recovered by means of increased taxes. It is the kind of Budget under which the wealthy investor pays little, but which brings pressure to bear on the person with initiative and enterprise who is less privileged. If one wants to go that far, it is a Budget which taxes children on their toys. In this debate I want to talk in particular about agriculture and the farmer—that forgotten section of the population. He is the person who produces the food, and if he does not do so, he ought to do so. Half the Bantu population of this country is accommodated by him. To that section of the Bantu population he must pay wages, he must feed them, he must provide them with clothing and look after them, he must provide them with housing which is mostly free of charge, when they are sick he must provide them with free medical services, and he has to enable them to live on the farm with their families and to make a decent living. I am speaking about that section of the population that has to perform this function. They have to support a large section of the population, pay their wages and provide them with all they need. They have to provide a decent living to them. Now the Minister states in his Budget Speech:

I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he thinks he has devised methods in this Budget “that ensures the continued growth of the South African economy”, or part of that economy, namely agriculture, or is there nothing in this Budget which will help that part of the economy to grow? His fourth point is “to assist those who in pleasant conditions are finding it difficult to make ends meet and particularly to mitigate for them the short-term effect”. I ask once more whether there is anything in this Budget that does this apart from the subsidies and apart from the fact that farming requisites are perhaps not so heavily taxed, whether there is anything to give encouragement and relief to that section of the population who are finding things so difficult in the present conditions? I should like to take the Minister along with me. He is not a farmer; he has to be advised by his Ministers of Agriculture in the Cabinet, and they have forfeited the confidence of the farmers a long time ago. I should like to tell him that the credit restrictions introduced last year and the increase in rates of interest rest heavily on the farmer. The Minister announced that he had requested the banks not to make them applicable to farmers because he was aware of the fact that as a result of poor prices and the drought farmers were not able to make the payments they should on their loans and mortgage bonds but that they would have to continue borrowing more and more. And mortgage loans, unlike loans from the State, now cost the farmers 8 per cent interest and on casual debts he has to pay as much as 10 per cent to 12 per cent. That is extremely expensive money. The Minister himself states in his White Paper that interest on long-term Government stock is the highest in our history. Now I ask, if that is the highest in our history, do we have any prospect or hope that rates of interest will be decreased shortly, or is it a burden the farmer will have to bear over a long period? I have said that I wanted to take the Minister along with me. I want to draw his attention to the price structure. When I come to the price structure of agricultural produce I am doing so in reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Christiana. He asked what this Party would do to reduce the burden of debt of the farmer. I want to draw attention to the price structure.

Hon. members always say that we do not give verse and chapter. What is contained in the White Paper on the Budget? It states that the index price of agricultural produce calculated on the basis of 100 in 1948 was 142 in 1958-9, the price of machinery and implements was 165 and the price of other requisites was 148. In other words, the index price for agricultural produce was 142 and the index price for the general requisites for production was 148. I do not want to occupy the time of this House by reading all the figures for the various years but that is a trend reflected throughout. In 1962-3 the producers’ price for agricultural produce was 146.7 according to the White Paper and the price of requisites was 157. I ask in all fairness if that has been the tendency over the years what was the reason? Because the Government mostly fixes the prices of produce as such but are not involved in fixing the prices of farming requisites. For that reason the gap has been becoming wider and wider. If there is an economist in this House who can tell me that things ought to go well with the farmers, if this has been the trend over a period of nine years, I shall be surprised. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Christiana considers himself to be an economist, he may explain it. Over the years the trend has been for the prices of produce to show a gradual increase, an increase of four points over a period of seven years, but the prices of requisites increased by nine points from 1957 to 1962. The prices of produce had not shown the same increasing trend as the prices of requisites, and for that reason the farmer found himself in difficulties to an increasing extent. The hon. member for Christiana asked what this Party would have done to reduce that burden of debt of the farmer. Is it not sound economy that if one could not control production prices because of one’s refusal to make cheaper fuel available to the farmer and to decrease customs duties on his tractors and machinery, that one then has to see to it that the two indices remain as close to each other as possible? That is a sensible approach to how one should try to organize agriculture and if one does not do so one is looking for trouble, and trouble has come. In fact, trouble is here now. Well, an adjustment has been made over the past two years and prices of produce increased considerably. The present trend is for the two indices to come closer together, but the harm has been done because the farmer no longer has so much produce to sell. He is faced with a drought. I want to contend that the price policy in connection with agricultural produce, namely cheap food for the population without taking production costs into account, is the major single factor which has contributed to the farmers finding themselves in this position. I want to ask the Minister how he thinks farmers will be able to pay higher rates of interest and more railage and more for all requisites, as a result of the taxes under this Budget, if their production costs are always relatively higher than the prices of their produce. In the publication of Commerce and Industries for July on page 66 we find the following and I want to quote it in order to substantiate that the point I have just made, namely that the farmers are producing less and do not have so much to sell now that the adjustment has been made, is one of the major factors handicapping them. It is stated here that food and live-stock imported during January to May, 1965, amounted to R24,100,000 and that food and live-stock imported during January to May, 1966, amounted to R39,700,000. That is an increase of more than R15,000,000. However, this occurred when there was a general decrease in imports of more than R100,000,000 over the same period of five months from January to May, 1966.

At that time the imports of food were R15,000,000 more than those for the corresponding period the previous year, but general imports were R100,000,000 less. I mention that as an illustration of the invidious position in which agriculture finds itself, and I say that it proves that this Budget contains nothing to remedy the position. That was the position of agriculture when there was reasonable production. At that time the Government’s policy was cheap funds at any cost, even at the expense of the less solvent farmers. Now there are higher prices for some agricultural produce when the farmers have been caught up in the spiral of inflation and higher rates of interest under which they suffer as much as anybody else. This side of the House is not alone in holding this view. I should like to refer to the leading article in the Farmer’s Weekly of 24th August. I do not have the time at my disposal to read it out, but it is significant that something like this is stated by an agricultural publication which adopts such a neutral point of view towards politics as the Farmer’s Weekly does. It states—

I just want to mention another point and that is the subsidy on wheat and maize. The farmer does not always receive the benefit of this subsidy because the importation of wheat is also involved in that. The Government says that we should all make a contribution by saving, but I should like to hear the Minister of Finance telling consumers that they should eat brown bread for a change so that we may effect savings. But they will never do that. But what do they do otherwise? The hon. member for Krugersdorp yesterday spoke about beef. The statistics of Commerce and Industries show that the price of beef decreased from 17 cents per pound in April to 16 cents per pound in May. I want to challenge the Minister to come along with me to see whether he can buy beef anywhere in a butchery, here or somewhere else, at 18 cents per pound, and I am talking about first grade meat. I have been bold enough to bring a cut of beef along with me to-day. It is a T-bone steak and it is first grade meat, and it looks very nice. I bought it just before lunch because I had hoped to roast it, but it was so expensive that I did not have the heart to do so. Here is the cut of meat and here is the cash slip which shows that it is just over one pound and that the price is 54 cents. Thirty per cent of this cut consists of bone. That is not all. You will perhaps tell me: “You took a choice cut”. Fillet steak is 72 cents per pound; sirloin is 50 cents per pound. I am now talking about an article the price of which to the farmer was 16.18 cents per pound in May and the price has still decreased since that time. Is it possible that a Government which is so concerned about inflation and the cost of living will allow the housewife, not only on these cuts of beef, but also on all perishables, on vegetables, on a head of lettuce, on a head of cabbage, on a pound of beans, to pay the retailer three times the price he paid on the wholesale market? On the wholesale market the price is reasonable but the housewife has to pay three times that amount. Those are the things which make cost of living higher. My time is up. I just want to make the allegation that in this entire Budget, instead of provision having been made for a long-term price policy for the farmer, instead of provision having been made for a decrease in production costs by way of a decrease in customs duty on agricultural machinery, instead of provision having been made for a decrease in the price of fuel to be used for production purposes, instead of provision having been made for a degree of stability, absolutely nothing has been done for the farmer.

The economist of East London (City) wanted to gull us a moment ago into believing that they would have governed so well had they been in power under these circumstances. Firstly, he talked about the poor prices the farmers were getting. To start with, in spite of the drought the farmers received millions of rand more for their last wool crop than what they had received the year before. The price of maize was increased by 35 to 40 cents on that of last year and in addition to that the crop this year was even bigger than that of last year.

Even the prices of wheat, kaffir corn and all agricultural products have been increased in recent times. The hon. member said that had they been in power they would have seen to it that production costs had not increased. We know that they make a great fuss about the price of bags and the price of artificial fertilizers. When India placed an embargo on the exporting of bags to South Africa round about 1946 the farmers’ associations asked that South Africa should manufacture her own bags, and they said that they would not mind paying a little more because they would know that the bags were being manufactured here. Now that that is being done, the Opposition are crying about it.

Mr. Speaker, the price of bags does not affect the producer, because one first calculates the production costs and then adds the profit the farmer should get and only then the price of the bag is added; this final figure then becomes the price of the product. In other words, the price of the bag is paid by the consumer who buys the bag of wheat or the bag of maize, and not by the producer. It is very easy to want to use a whip every time, but the hon. member does not actually know where to hit.

Sometimes one cuts off one’s ears if one does not know how to handle the whip.

If one cannot handle a whip one hits oneself in the eye with it, and that is what the United Party is doing at the moment. They talk about the price of meat and the price of perishable products. It seems to me as though they want a fixed price for perishable products as well. Have they ever considered what it would cost to introduce a fixed price for perishable products? Who will buy all those perishable products when there is a fixed price and when there are not enough buyers at the fixed price? But those hon. members have never thought of that. No, they simply plead for a fixed price because it sounds fine and because they think it will make them popular with the farming community if they do so.

Who pleaded for that?

They have never told the farmers what it would cost to have such a fixed price.

The hon. member also said that development in South Africa was not taking place rapidly enough. He compared us with Australia, which, he said, was developing so rapidly and had such large factories. I want to say that as far as development is concerned South Africa is indebted only to the National Party for her development and not to the Opposition. I just want to remind hon. members opposite that they always said in the past that there were certain things South Africa could not produce and which had to be imported. When the Government asked for £5,000,000 in 1926-7 for the purpose of establishing Iscor it was vigorously opposed by the old South African Party, the predecessor of the present United Party.

When that Bill was piloted through this House I as a young man read in the newspapers that General Smuts had got up and had said here that £5,000,000 was being thrown away. They said that South Africa did not have the technicians to tackle such an undertaking and that South Africa was still too young for it. But during the Second World War General Smuts boasted of Iscor and said that they would not have won the war if it had not been for Iscor. That is how they claim the achievements of the National Party as their own. Just think of 1948. When this Government came into power in 1948 General Smuts said that the banks would close down and that there would be no money in the country. When we became a Republic that same party said that the products of the farmers would lie and rot and that our trade would come to a complete stop, because who would be prepared to trade with the Republic? Instead of that our trade more than doubled. And then the Opposition accuses this Government of not developing the country and of being the brake which has caused the rapid development of the country to come to a stop.

The hon. member for Constantia, the United Party’s main speaker on financial matters, got up in this House year after year and complained that the country was not developing rapidly enough. He said that what little progress there was, was due to the country’s own strength and resources. That was what the hon. member for Constantia said in this House year after year until last year. Then he realized that he could say that no longer, and then he accused the Government of having made no provision for sufficient manpower. This year he accused the Government of not having applied the brake soon enough.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Newton Park, who wanted to know why the Government did not pay higher subsidies on food. The Government is paying so much by way of subsidies to-day that it has become almost impossible to control and regulate the matter. It seems to me that the hon. member for Newton Park does not realize that the Government pays a subsidy of more than 70 cents per bag on yellow maize and more than 40 cents per bag on white maize.

That is news to him.

The Government pays these subsidies in order to be able to supply maize at a cheap price to the consumer and to the sheep farmer who needs the maize to keep his sheep alive. We have the position to-day that a farmer who stays fairly near to a station sells all his maize at the subsidized price as a producer and then buys back that same maize as a consumer at a price lower than that at which he sold it. The more one increases the difference the worse the position will become, but the Opposition do not take that into account; they simply do not know how these things work.

That is poor administration; you should put it right.

The hon. member says the Government should pay more by way of subsidies. This year the Government will pay R5,000,000 more by way of subsidy than it did last year on maize alone, and it is already paying a subsidy of approximately R40,000,000 on maize. The Opposition says that the farmers should be paid better prices and that then they would not get into difficulties. The farmers who get into difficulties do not get into difficulties because of prices. If the farmers, particularly the grain and stock farmers, get enough rain they will prosper, but no farmer can prosper if he does not get rain, if his crops are a failure, if he has to move somewhere else with his stock, if he has no income. They are also fond of saying that the farmer does not share in the prosperity of the country.

But that is true.

Mr. Speaker, if one has the product, if one has the maize or the wheat or if one has the wool or the fat oxen to sell one does share in the prosperity of the country at the present prices. It is said that nothing is being done for the farmers. We find to-day that a department of agricultural credit has been established to be able to assist the farmers on a much sounder basis. My hon. friends speak of the rates of interest the farmers have to pay. In this connection the farmer is being assisted by means of a low rate of interest of 5 per cent. Do the hon. members on that side want the farmers to pay no interest at all? There are many farmers who will not go to the Department of Agricultural Credit to obtain credit and who will pay high rates of interest, but usually they are farmers who are financially strong and who can afford to pay higher rates of interest. The rate of interest of 5 per cent is meant for the farmer who has suffered severely as a result of the drought and who cannot afford to pay a high rate of interest.

Yesterday in his maiden speech the hon. member for Odendaalsrus drew the attention of the House to the developments taking place in the northwestern Free State. I should like to join him, but actually I want to draw a wider circle in respect of that matter.

In the brief period at my disposal I, therefore, want to make use of this opportunity to speak about a few matters regarding the Orange Free State, and of the possibility for industrialization. At the outset, however, I want to say that when I speak about the possibilities of the Orange Free State and of its potential, it should not be interpreted in a narrow provincialistic sense. The closest I shall come to provincialism is when I discuss the development of the Orange Free State in terms of sound and accepted regional development principles. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we, as people of the Free State, have a duty to the rest of the Republic, to endeavour actively to ensure that every possible attempt is made to exploit the potential of that province to the full.

I say that, Mr. Speaker, because it is recognized that in comparison with other regions in our country, and in particular as regards the post-war industrial development that has taken place in this country, the Free State, has not received its just share. At present this whole matter of industrialization in South Africa is enjoying exceptionally wide interest, not only among the industrialists, but also among the businessmen, the traders and the salary earners. At the outset and by way of introduction I want to use this opportunity to give a brief resumé in respect of the few points I want to make here, by means of which I want to indicate why there is such an intense interest in industrialization in South Africa. The first factor to which I want to attribute it, is the phenomenal industrial development that has taken place in South Africa.

This afternoon we listened most attentively to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who sketched the unprecedented industrial development that has taken place in South Africa lucidly and briefly. No wonder that South Africa is referred to as the industrial giant on the continent of Africa. I believe, in fact, that South Africa can justly and with pride claim the title of the industrial giant on the continent of Africa. In view of, and despite the fact that South Africa represents only 7 per cent of the surface area of the continent of Africa, and its people only 7 per cent of the total population on the continent, South Africa was in the year 1962 already producing 24 per cent of the industrial output of the continent. But, Mr. Speaker, to me there is a second important reason why the subject of industrialization in South Africa is of such vital interest and is stimulating so much thought. That is the confidence which this National Party Government shows in our country from time to time by announcing great projects, and by then displaying the drive needed to carry out those projects. And with that I want to couple—and that is a third important factor—the Government’s accepted and professed policy of decentralization of industries in South Africa, and also the establishment of border industries. In respect of its border industries I have noted with appreciation the speech made by the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education in this House, when he presented a clear picture of the progress that has already been made in this respect in South Africa. I also noted with appreciation the beautiful picture he presented of what can be expected in South Africa in future as regards this important aspect. You will therefore appreciate that in recent times in particular we, as people of the Free State, are becoming more and more interested in what is going to happen in our region. And I should like to use this opportunity to-day to offer my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the Hon. Administrator of the Orange Free State and his Executive Council for the active endeavours which are being made to utilize the potential of that province to the full. I say I want to use this opportunity to offer them my sincere gratitude for the active endeavours that are being made to give the Orange Free State a share, and a just share, in industrialization which is certainly taking place in South Africa. Without taking up too much of the time of the House, I want to mention briefly some most creditable attempts that are being made by the Free State Provincial Administration, to see whether the potential of the Free State cannot be realized so that it may receive its fair share in respect of industrialization. Among other things, an inquiry has been instituted in the Orange Free State and a report has been published with regard to the water potential of the province. An inquiry has also been instituted and a report published in respect of the power potential of that province. Then we have the planning surveys in respect of the north-western Free State; the Regional Bureau for Water Research which was established mainly on the initiative of this Administration and in co-operation with the Water Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. and the University of the Free State; the inquiry into the planning of the Bloemfontein complex, with specific reference to the orderly planning of smallholdings and the establishment of the Advisory Board for Publicity and Tourism. And then there is also the big step forward with regard to the establishment of the Planning and Development Advisory Council, to which the following tasks have been entrusted among other things: The scientific classification of the province into planning and development regions; the evaluation of all existing projects; the planning of complementary projects; establishing the priority of projects, etc. I do not want to take up the time of the House any further with these particulars. I have merely given a brief resume of them to demonstrate clearly to this House that the development of the Orange Free State is a serious matter to those who have its interests at heart. Along with these I want to mention briefly certain advantages that we enjoy in the Orange Free State, which cannot be taken away from the Free State and which I believe will be of inestimable value in the development of its possibilities. The first is its geographic situation. But apart from that it also has the basic factors of power and water. The Orange Free State is in the fortunate position that it is bounded by two of our greatest water-carrying rivers in South Africa, namely the Orange and the Vaal Rivers. Over and above these it also has its inland rivers. Its power network compares well with the best in South Africa. Without boring the House I want to deal briefly with the mineral and agricultural potential of the Orange Free State. And when I mention these, I should like you to see them against the background of the fact that the Orange Free State represents only 10 per cent of the surface area of South Africa. Then I should also like you to see them against the background of the fact that the Orange Free State population constitutes only 9 per cent of the population of the Republic. Against this, the Free State produces 35 per cent of the maize output, 35 per cent of the wheat output, 30 per cent of the oats, 25 per cent of the groundnuts, and as regards dairy and meat production, the Free State produces 30 per cent to 35 per cent of the dairy products of the Republic. It also produces 20 per cent of the beef and 22 per cent of the wool. Apart from its agricultural products the Free State also has valuable raw materials and minerals. The Central Province is already producing more than 30 per cent of the gold of our country. In 1964 the Free State gold-mines produced no less than 40.1 per cent of the net profit of the South African gold-mining industry. We have the second largest sulphuric acid factory in the world, namely that at Virginia. Our salt production amounts to 17,000 tons a year and we also have deposits of important minerals like magnesite, thorium and zirconium. I believe that the most recent factor which has contributed towards evoking interest in the industries has been this terrible and protracted drought. This drought has made people in the Free State realize anew that our economy should most certainly be diversified to a greater extent. The Orange Free State is particularly vulnerable and has been vulnerable for many years because its economy is based mainly on agriculture. But in actual fact that drought has proved a blessing to the Free State in another sense also. It has forced the industrialists and investors who have concentrated on the Vaal triangle to such an extent, to realize that in future they will have to support the Government’s policy of decentralization to a greater extent. It is surely a recognized fact that the Vaal River simply cannot carry any more. Throughout our country people have come to realize that there must be greater decentralization of industries. In certain respects the drought is therefore a blessing. Mr. Speaker, the constituency I represent is dependent to a large extent upon the gold-mining industry. I hasten to say that we are particularly grateful for the phenomenal development that has taken place in such a short period, particularly in Welkom, thanks to the rise of the gold-mining industry. We are grateful that over a period of 18 years Welkom has grown to the 13th largest town or city in the Republic. We are grateful that an amount of approximately R500,000,000 has been invested in Welkom by the gold-mining industry. I say we are grateful that Welkom with its six nearby mines is producing approximately 30 per cent of the gold output of South Africa and 18 per cent of that in respect of the free world. Mr. Speaker, I also want to associate myself with the points made by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, when he expressed his concern, and said that it should be realized that those mines are dwindling assets, and that it should be borne in mind that sooner or later they will no longer be producing, and that there should be something else in their stead when that unfortunate day arrives. It is with particular pleasure that I express my sincere gratitude and appreciation in this highest legislative chamber to the wide-awake City Council of Welkom. Because that city council realizes that it also bears a responsibility, it has even at this early stage made active and systematic endeavours to draw prospective industrialists to Welkom in some way or other. This City Council is doing its best to ensure that when the goose is no longer laying the golden eggs, there must be something else to take the place of the existing riches. I am glad to mention that the City Council of Welkom is offering South African industrialists sites at very low prices. The City Council of Welkom is also offering prospective industrialists many other advantages which will make their establishment there an attractive proposition. Here I am thinking for example of low water and power tariffs, etc. My time has virtually expired, Mr. Speaker. I promised the Chief Whip that I would speak for only ten to 12 minutes, and I should like to keep my promise. I hope and trust, however, that all those active endeavours made by the local authority and by that region as a whole, in co-operation with the Free State and in consultation with the Central Government, will contribute towards ensuring that when the Free State gold mines become exhausted at some stage or other, other secondary industries will take their places, and that development in that region also will continue for many years to come, in the interest of our country. Finally I just want to say the following. All these attempts which are being made to promote decentralization of industries in the Orange Free State, should be seen against the total background of development in South Africa. It should be realized very well that if they were to be treated as separate tasks, or if the Orange Free State wanted to direct its developments on its own along certain lines, we may accept that everything will stop at brief-case plans. Each of these tasks as such is therefore specific and aimed at an objective, but is always seen in its relation to the whole, not only within the confines of the Free State, but—and that is very important—also within the confines of our country.

It is my great privilege this afternoon to congratulate the hon. member for Welkom on his maiden speech in this House. He delivered it clearly and concisely and I should like to congratulate him on it. It was a very well-prepared speech and from its contents it was evident that he is exceedingly fond of his province, the Free State. In fact, even although I am a convinced Kapenaar I was tempted to echo the cry of “Vrystaat”, a cry which was heard in this hon. Assembly not many days ago. In congratulating the hon. member I can only say that I wish I could also share his confidence in this Government. I do, however, agree with him on the need for decentralization of industries but I should like to warn him that he is going to find that he will have many competitors indeed when it comes to the siting of decentralized industries. What is more, he will find competitors even amongst his own colleagues. Nonetheless, I wish him well in this House and on behalf of both sides of the House I welcome him here. May his stay here be a happy one.

The hon. member for Ladybrand struck a strange note in his speech in this House. When during previous debates on agriculture in this House it was stated that the wool farmer was not sharing in the general prosperity of the country, we heard the cry from the Government benches that it was not they who fixed wool prices but that wool was sold on the international market. This afternoon, however, we had the hon. member for Ladybrand coming here and linking wool prices with some of the prices which are fixed by some control board or other. Sir, he really cannot have it both ways; he cannot have his cake and eat it too. With respect to the hon. member I should like to suggest to him that he should stick to his mealies and leave wool alone. He has also mentioned that the price of jute, the price of bags, does enter into the price determination for mealies. That most certainly is not the case with wool packs. This is something which the producer of wool has to bear. What also struck me about this speech of the hon. member was the limited time he devoted to agriculture. He gave us a dissertation on the history of Iscor and on one or two other matters. His speech I think was symptomatic of what I should like to describe as “dank-die-Minister” speeches, the only difference being that this type of speech is delivered with less fervour after we have heard the Budget proposals.

There is little doubt that there is very little in this Budget which will be of comfort to the agriculturist. What it is going to do is that it will set off a chain reaction of rising prices which in turn will adversely affect production costs of the agricultural producer. I am very glad that this is one of the very few occasions on which I find myself in a measure of agreement with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad who referred to “steeds stygende pryse van produksiemiddels”. When the hon. the Minister introduced his Budget, he stated it as his second objective to finance, as far as our means allow, this expenditure in a non-inflationary manner, and to protect, in other respects too the stability of the rand, thereby snaring South Africa the ravages of inflation. This he said was his second objective. When we have to consider whether there is going to be cost-push inflation under this Budget—something there is going to be—then we have to read this Budget in conjunction with the Budget introduced some time ago by the Minister of Transport. On a previous occasion I already drew attention to the increase in the railage on diesoline but I did not get an answer from the Minister on that occasion. This and the increase on power paraffin over a distance of 300 miles amounts to 28c per 100 1b. which means an 8c, or 40 per cent, increase. This will in the end amount to .72c per gallon on diesoline, or 32c per drum. Then the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget announced that he proposes an increase of 1c per gallon in the present customs and excise duties on petrol and diesel oil used in road vehicles. He said that this increase did not apply to diesel oil used for other than road purposes. I should like the hon. Minister to clarify the phrase “other than road purposes”. I presume the hon. the Minister means that an increase of 1c in the duty on diesoline does not apply to road vehicles, for example a farmer’s lorry or his tractor and trailer conveying what I believe is category B products. This means unprocessed raw materials …

The same position will obtain as obtains now. In so far as it does apply now it will still apply in future. Only the price will be 1c higher.

Thank you, Sir. In other words, it will apply to category A commodities, a category in which there is quite a large number of processed agricultural commodities. For example: if a chicken farmer slaughters his chickens, puts them into plastic bags, refrigerates them and then takes them to the market to deliver to a chain store then he will have to pay in accordance with category A. This is an example which is going to be repeated throughout our economy and in this way we are going to get these chain cost-push increases.

The hon. the Minister has also increased the duty on petrol by 1c per gallon and taken together with the extra railage imposed by the Minister of Transport this is going to amount to about 2c extra on a gallon of petrol inland. The Minister of Finance said that people could save petrol because a large amount of petrol was being used purely for joy riding. But the Minister should be more sympathetic to the view that petrol to-day is one of the most important production requirements of the agricultural community. The work-horse on the modern farm is the light delivery, the three-quarter or one ton “bakkie”. It is the poorer class of farmer who is, relatively, going to be hit much harder by this increase because they have to use their “bakkies”, not having a motor car, for a’l their business.

I have said that there is going to be a chain reaction and that this is going to lead in the end to higher production costs. These increases are going to snowball. The Government is now imposing these extra taxes on the community to cure a so-called inflationary situation, a situation where, if they did not create it themselves in the first place, they at least fanned the flames of the fire. As an example of this I want to refer to the fact that in 1964, and this in pursuit of purely ideological considerations, they paid more than R8,000,000 to buy up farms for potential Bantustans in South West Africa. This was purely an inflationary payment which injected money into the economy without there being any corresponding increase in productivity. Now again the hon. Minister are throwing diesoline, power paraffin and petrol on the inflationary fire. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport during the Railway Budget debate tried to minimize these production cost increases by expressing them as percentages of the retail price. He said that they were not important increases. It may be so that each increase by itself is but a small one and may sound insignificant but if the sum total of these increases, each one of which is going to affect us in our daily lives—and the farmer is a consumer as much as anybody else—are added up they will be found to be very considerable indeed and as such will constitute a very heavy burden on the community.

Already members on this side referred to the increase in interest rates. Last year the Minister during the Budget debate said that the President of the Reserve Bank would see to it that clearer instructions would be given to the bank so that bona fide loans to the farmers for agricultural production would not be restricted. But what has happened in practice? A man may go to his commercial bank for a loan for a certain specific purpose say, for instance, for the purchase of breeding stock. But these are not the only production requirements which the agricultural producer needs. There are other requirements which he has to meet, requirements such as rations and clothing for his labourers, etc. These he has to meet from other sources. He might get these from a co-operative or from a private store. The hon. member for Cradock in his speech yesterday showed what the effect was on the small country towns of natural phenomena such as droughts. To that he might have added the credit squeeze, because this again sets off a reaction the net result of which will be that the producer will be unable to get his production requirements on the same credit terms as he got them before, thus negativing to a great extent the intention of the hon. the Minister of not applying the credit squeeze to the farming community. Interest rates have been raised once more and farmers who do not have loans with the Land Bank but with private institutions will be faced with an increasingly heavy burden to carry. These are the people who need to be financed. They are in many instances being financed by small shops, small businesses which are affected by the credit squeeze because the banks do not want to extend their credit. In many instances therefore it is going to be our co-operative societies that are going to have to carry the agricultural producer throughout this period.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg in a speech earlier in this debate seemed to want to suggest that we on this side of the House did not know what productivity was. He then went on to discuss the matter but from what he said it was clear that it was he who had rather a vague idea of what productivity was. But surely this is quite a simple matter and easy for anybody to comprehend if it is expressed in terms of production per man-hour. I see the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration is looking at me. Let me assure him that the production per man-hour I am referring to is not the same as what he referred to when he made the clarion call to the nation last year for larger families. Increased productivity therefore means an increase in the production per man-hour. Here again I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad who yesterday pleaded for a better and more reasonably priced electricity supply on the platteland. Here is a case where considerable decreases in production costs can be achieved by the provision of reasonably priced electricity. Usually the Government, however, shelters behind the Electricity Act by saying that Escom is a public utility corporation and as such beyond the Government’s control. I find, however, that Section 15 (1) of that Act specifies that if the Minister is of the opinion that consumers in any area, in respect of which an investigation has been made in terms of Section 8, should not be required to pay prices which are sufficient to cover the costs and other amounts referred to in sub-section (1), he may in consultation with the Minister of Finance and subject to the approval of the Board, notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, authorize the Commission to charge such lower prices in such area as he may deem reasonable. As far as I know, no use has yet been made of this provision and there is no doubt about it that the use of electricity can bring about spectacular decreases in production costs, and not only that, but the encouragement of rural electricity enables our power stations to operate more efficiently because of a balanced load. Virtually every Western country encourages rural electricity because they know that in the long run they will recoup the costs, but not in our country. I have Escom power; I am one of the lucky ones, but I have to pay something like R22 a month before I even start using any electricity. That is due to extension charges and other fixed charges.

My time is limited and I want to conclude by quoting from what Dr. Le Clus, the then director of the S.A. Agricultural Union, reported when he returned from America in 1952, and America is one of the countries where rural electrification is actively assisted not by the central government but by the various states. Dr. Le Clus reported that where less than 10 per cent of the farms had electricity, approximately 16 years ago, more than 90 per cent have it to-day. He says—

So one can go to other countries, too, such as the Republic of Southern Ireland. This is something to which the Government should really give attention, not merely as something which will slow down the depopulation of the platteland and which will enable our farmers to produce more food at lower cost, but also as something which will save foreign exchange, because we use our own natural raw materials here, like water which can be re-used again, and coal. But on every farm in this country there are stationary engines using dieseline or power paraffin or petrol which has to be imported from abroad. I need not dwell on the fact that we in this country to-day have to use, in the light of the international situation, as little of these imported fuels as we can to keep our economy going. Not merely is it a question of the stationary engines, but there are also tractors being used throughout the country on jobs such as hammer milling and ensilage cutting, using dieseline or power paraffin or petrol. I mention this as one of the many fields in which the Government could be doing something positive to assist the agricultural industry. Here is a subsidy, if you like to call it that, which might in the very short run be inflationary but in the long run would be completely disinflationary and would increase our agricultural production tremendously in this country.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there has been a new whim from America in regard to technical orientation concerning the verdict of the International Court in which South West Africa was involved, I, too, have thought it fit to orientate myself technically and to say a few things about ideas which have been exchanged here and are also being exchanged outside this House. As regards the new orientation concerning technical matters, I may add that it seems to me as though the ambassador of the U.S.A, at U.N. is not technical enough. In this respect we in South West Africa believe that theirs is already a lost cause. Technically we in South West Africa are on a very high level as regards our case in South West, and now I want to tell you a few things about technical matters in South West Africa, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. member for Welkom spoke here about his water requirements in the Free State. I want to make this statement that the hydrological cycle is a constant cycle as far as our rainfall is concerned. That holds good for the whole of Southern Africa and not only for South West Africa or the Free State. It remains constant, and in our future development in Southern Africa we shall have to take that fact into account and to adapt ourselves to it. In all our wishful thinking in this regard and in regard to the development we contemplate, we shall not be able to ignore this important fact.

Ideas have been exchanged here of 40,000,000 people and there have also been visions of 70,000,000 people, but if we take this hydrological cycle of ours into account, I can tell you that at the present rate of water consumption in Southern Africa—and the information received points to the fact that it is approximately 5,000,000,000 gallons a day—

Soil conservation has been discussed here, and it is also receiving a great deal of publicity. We are all in favour of soil conservation, but it also creates certain problems for the engineer, for the person who has to plan for the future. Previously it was estimated that the flow-off in our rivers was approximately 9 per cent of the rainfall, but the latest figures I have seen show that it is now estimated at approximately 6½ per cent of the rainfall. As water conservation, for which we are constantly agitating, improves, the flow-off will steadily decrease, and there is evidence to that effect. There is the historic case on a farm in the district of Bethlehem where a farmer fully planned his farm for soil conservation, and as a result of that soil conservation he did not lose a single drop of flow-off water of the normal annual rainfall on his farm. Now, you can imagine for yourself that if soil conservation is applied fully in the Vaal Basin of which the hon. member for Welkom spoke and on which he based his dreams of the future for the industrial development of the Free State, one will in actual fact have no water left and without water one cannot do anything. I merely mention that because people often view their problems through blinkers. They do not see further than the horizon, and as far as our water requirements are concerned, we shall have to look beyond the horizon. People are, for instance, dreaming about water from the ocean. That reminds me of the two farmers, Uncle Piet and Cousin Jan, who came from the Kalahari and saw the sea for the first time. Uncle Piet said to Cousin Jan, “Man, isn’t that a fine dam?” Then Cousin Piet said: “Yes, I wish I only had two such dams at Ganspan.” Ever since these problems as regards our water requirements have arisen, people have been thinking of the tremendous source of water afforded us by the ocean. I have already mentioned the problems which soil conservation will create for us. The flow-off in rivers is decreasing. It is true that fountains will improve, but in the meantime the population has also increased, and on farms where there is at present no flow-off, people have sunk boreholes and the water level has been dropping gradually, just as the water level is dropping everywhere in Southern Africa at present. The same problem is at present being created in regard to the desalination of sea water. People are dreaming at present of waving grasslands covering the Karoo, but there are other problems we should take into account in regard to the desalination of sea water. Imagine the whole of the Karoo and the Free State under sea water, and from where should the water come? From the ocean. It creates a vacuum which has to be filled. The desalination of water does, of course, imply that certain products will be obtained from that sea water. The eternal problem in the desalination of water will always be who is to consume the salt, or those sodium and magnesium chlorides and allied salts which will be produced? I do not want to be the Karoo or Free State farmer who has to consume that magnesium chloride which will be a by-product in the desalination of water. I merely mention these problems to show that there is still a great deal of research to be done in regard to the desalination of water. On account of the fact that there are border rivers in South West Africa where, notwithstanding the fact that South-West is a semi-arid country, the flow-off is much greater than that of the rivers of the Republic, I want to ask whether something cannot be done about the more extensive utilization of these flow-offs. I do not know why South West Africa has not been included in the extensive water plan which will be investigated by the Commission the Government has appointed. Perhaps there is a well-founded reason for it. But I want to request that South West Africa should be included in the inquiry into a water plan for the future development of Southern Africa. I say that on account of the fact that there is a much greater flow-off in those rivers than there is in the rivers of the Republic of South Africa. You see that there may be a certain amount of assistance from South West Africa in that regard. We have certain rights there, and I believe that in co-operation with those other neighbouring states which also have a concern in the matter, mutual assistance can be rendered in regard to the provision of water which should, after all is said and done, be treated as a unit for the mutual benefit of the parties concerned, both Whites and non-White. I say that we are technically orientated in South West Africa, and particularly as far as this matter is concerned, I can proudly say that in co-operation with various Departments, the Department of Water Affairs in South West Africa, Geological Surveys and the C.S.I.R., we have achieved in South West Africa great things which are the pride of the Continent of Africa, so much so that we are in actual fact ahead of the mighty U.S.A., which for technical reasons has now decided that they cannot accept the verdict of the World Court. I say this on account of the fact that we have undertaken schemes there with a view to long-term planning and with a view to the fact that we believe that South West Africa is our permanent home and not an outspan on the road to nowhere. We have undertaken various research projects there, and those projects are the pride of every South-Wester. I believe that if hon. members visit South-West and examine them technically they will find that they are sound, just as the officers of the U.N. who paid it a visit roundabout 1963 admitted that we could justly be proud of it. In this regard I refer to a scheme which is generally known as the Rooibank Water Scheme in the Kuiseb River which supplies water to towns such as Walvis Bay and Swakopmund. Here we diverted water to the dunes: we located extensive subterranean sources, and the extent of the water supplies conserved there will most certainly come very near to that of the dam which will in future be generally known as the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. We do not have to contend there with the problem of evaporation which will in fact be present at the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. That is simply attributable to the fact that we have done a great deal of research in this direction; that we are conserving water in the dunes and pumping it out for consumption by the public of Walvis Bay and Swakopmund. There is other research work from which I think the Republic can learn a great deal if they will take the trouble to visit us and to examine what we are doing in that direction. I am thinking of the work which has been done in regard to sand weirs; I am thinking of your own problems here in the Republic in regard to the Limpopo and the Malapo, where you can learn a great deal from us as regards combating water problems in that neighbourhood. I merely want to point out that these results have been achieved through intensive research into our problems. We have spent a considerable amount of money on such research for the benefit of the inhabitants of South West Africa, both White and non-White. Over the years we have achieved something of which we can be very proud. Every Budget we have piloted through in the Administration of South West Africa, has always included large amounts intended for research. I notice in this Budget that provision is being made for considerable amounts of money to be spent on research. I believe that if we did not make those amounts available, we would be prejudicing our future here in Southern Africa.

It is for me as newcomer a pleasure and a privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Etosha on his speech. He proved beyond doubt that he had a very extensive knowledge of his constituency, his people and their requirements. In my humble opinion that is a fundamental requirement of a good representative in this honourable House.

Briefly I want to continue along the pattern of previous speakers who are new members and that is to present my constituency Bethal to this House, and by doing that I want at the same time to indicate the tremendous economic growth which our country has undergone in recent times. Approximately seven years ago the new Eastern Transvaal goldfields were discovered in my constituency. This area was developed to such an extent that at this stage there are already four gold mines in operation and one of the finest towns in the Eastern Transvaal, which perhaps is not so well known at this stage, i.e. Evander, has developed and it already has a population of 7,000 people. There are also ten coal mines in my constituency and recently further economically exploitable deposits of coal have also been discovered there. Another very important industry in my constituency and one with which I am closely associated is agriculture. Bethal is also well known throughout the country as an important agricultural region. I may even say that Bethal is one of the most highly productive regions in the Republic as far as dry-land potatoes are concerned, and in this region mixed farming operations are fairly generally carried out. One finds mostly cattle farming and agronomy there and I can say that 80 per cent of the farming is of a very mixed nature. That makes farming planning extremely complicated, technical and difficult.

Now it is also the case that in my constituency soil conservation has been carried out for the past 13 years by means of committees appointed under the Soil Conservation Act. In these 13 years we have gained considerable experience in connection with the application of the Soil Conservation Act, and to-day I want to say a few things about the application of this important Act. I know that the concept of soil conservation is very important to our people, especially now, after this tremendous drought. I also know that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, with the aid of the hon. the Minister, has contributed much towards inculcating the idea of soil preservation in our people. I am thinking in particular of the land service movement to make our youth aware of the importance of soil conservation so that there may be continuity in the idea of soil conservation. The fact of the matter, however, is that the application of the Soil Conservation Act, both now and in the future, will, as far as I can see, be mostly in the hands of the farmer because he is the greatest landowner in South Africa. I also want to say that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the relevant Department for the help which it has offered in that respect to our farmers who have to apply soil conservation. I can just mention briefly that according to the 1964-5 Soil Conservation Report, 112,778,000 morgen, i.e. almost all the agricultural land in South Africa, has already been proclaimed under the Act. Farming works to the value of R6,293,000 have been approved in the 1964-5 review year, i.e. R1,000,000 more than in the corresponding period for the previous year, and on those plus-minus 113,000,000 morgen, 815 conservation committees have been brought into operation under the Act. One may now conclude that the soil conservation machine has been put into organizational operation and that the way in which this soil conservation machine is going to be used in future will depend mainly upon the farmers of South Africa and upon the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The point I want to emphasize strongly is that we should not, in terms of the Act regard soil conservation as only a physical protection of our soil. It also demands rehabilitation and, if possible, the rapid improvement of all the resources of our soil. Our country is a growing one and larger demands are continually going to be made on the agricultural potential of our soil. We know that the soil-fertility of the old civilization, the old agricultural countries of the world did not deteriorate but, on the contrary, has always improved. The Act is very clear on this point, and I just want to quote to you the preamble to the Act of 1946 in order to emphasize my point of view—

That is the physical aspect—

It can therefore rightly be said that soil conservation and reclamation work are not synonymous. If we had made a very early start with soil conservation in this country and if we had applied better soil conservation practices, then we would in actual fact not have had so many problems and so much expense in regard to reclamation works to-day. We therefore have to make up a tremendous amount of leeway as far as soil conservation is concerned, and that is perhaps due to the fact that the Act was placed on the Statute Book at such a late juncture.

I have said that the farmer is the most important applier of soil conservation and that soil conservation cannot really be applied before one is able to develop a proper conservation farming system on every farming unit in this country. In order to apply soil conservation in the spirit of the Act, a conservation farming system must, in my opinion—and that is what the problems which we have experienced in the past 13 years in my area have amounted to—rest on three fundamental points. The first is that there must be physical planning; the second is that there must also be biological planning, i.e. that which has to do with the life in and on the soil the plant and the animal-life; and the third important point is that there should also be economic planning. All three factors are very closely linked. I now want to try and give a practical illustration. If a piece of land were to be contoured strictly according to specifications but were to be ploughed in such a way that a hard pan developed, if it were to be fertilized in such a way that a shortage of plant nutrition arose, and if it were to be planted without due allowance for a proper crop rotation scheme, what would we achieve with physical planning alone? The same applies to grazing land. If one were to fence in camps and erect waterworks without taking care that those things had been adapted to the right type of grass and the correct numbers of cattle, one could do more harm than good. That is why, Mr. Speaker, physical planning alone cannot be identified with the concept of conservation.

The third point is economic planning. The applier of this conservation plan is after all a farmer. He is entitled to an economic existence. If the planning were to require expensive reclamation works, it might just be the last straw which breaks his back. And that in spite of the tremendous State assistance and subsidies which we have been receiving in recent times. Economic planning must also be very closely and very strongly adapted to physical and biological planning. But because of the concept of conservation in our country, the economic aspect also has a very serious socio-economic purport. It has been found that on many of the conservation works and many of the farms which have been planned during recent times the gates of the camp systems are left open and that proper rotation grazing is not being applied. The reason for that is that initially there was no proper planning with due consideration for these three aspects.

A thing like that has a detrimental effect on the whole neighbourhood. It has a negative influence on the concept of conservation. Conservation farming, Mr. Speaker, therefore includes the economic utilization of all agricultural resources. So much so that one will not only by that means conserve the fertility of the soil, one will also develop the fertility of the soil. Soil conservation is not a building which one completes and having done so is then practically finished with one’s task. When dealing with soil conservation, we are dealing with a living thing. This is so because we are working with the soil, soil in which there is life and out of which life must spring. That is why we cannot and may not say that our task, as far as the conservation of the soil is concerned, will be completed now or in the future. It must be a continual process of life and growth.

I am now coming to the end of my argument, Mr. Speaker, I have said that on the approximately 113,000,000 morgen there are 815 soil conservation committees which will have to meet these requirements. They will have to receive a great deal of assistance from our agricultural technical services. They will have to give a great deal of attention to their task in order to meet these requirements of soil conservation and in order to apply the Act in the right spirit. In the past and up to the present our problem has been that soil conservation committees are expected to restrict themselves mainly to physical planning. And it is in that very fact that our danger lies hidden. I trust that these 815 farmers’ committees—and they comprise our farmers themselves—will accept the challenge with which we are faced, provided they receive the necessary guidance. When we look to the future we probably hope, each one of us, that the day will soon dawn when we will no longer have to use the Soil Conservation Act in order to restore the hurt which has been done to our soil, but that the stage will soon be reached when we will merely have to build up the fertility of and rehabilitate our soil.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I must congratulate the two young members on their maiden speeches. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Etosha and the hon. member for Bethal. They have delivered two good and well-prepared speeches. Obviously they have their problems in their particular areas. We have an old Afrikaans saying, “’n Ander man se boeke is duister om te lees”. The hon. members have discussed the problems of South West Africa and those of certain Transvaal areas. Well, I also have my problems here in the Cape Province, particularly problems related to agriculture. I will deal with those problems, possibly from a different angle. Because I prefer to do so tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I therefore now move—