I move as an unopposed motion—

Mr. Speaker, I am moving this motion as a result of a discussion which took place between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, during which these gentlemen agreed as follows:

1. (a) That the above-mentioned measure before second reading be referred to a select committee which may be converted into a commission and with instructions to bring out a report not later than 31st March, 1967;
2. (b) that the term of office of the present Coloured representatives in the House of Assembly be extended, by means of an agreed measure between the Government and the official Opposition, to not later than 31st October, 1967;
3. (c) that this side of the House reserves for itself the right to place on record unequivocally, as it is doing hereby, that it will not tolerate any exploitation by one population group of the political rights of another population group, inter alia, also those of the Coloured population group.

There is also a further clause in the agreement, on which I should like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to have the opportunity to state his views to this House himself.

We on this side of the House support this motion and I want to associate myself with the terms of the conversation, as read out to the House by the hon. the Minister. Sir, when a Bill is referred to a select committee before the second reading, it means, of course, that the House has accepted no principle in that Bill, and I am therefore in the position that I am able to say that I am bound by no single principle in the present Bill. I want to say, however, that I am conscious of the fact that there have been abuses in connection with these elections, particularly in the field of registration, and it is for that reason that I feel that I am very prepared to see the whole position re-examined and, while that re-examination is taking place, to see the political lives of the present representatives extended for a maximum period of one year. I second.

I rise to express on behalf of my colleagues and myself our appreciation to the hon. the Prime Minister for the Government’s decision to refer the subject of this Bill to a select committee before the second reading. Sir, I am quite certain that this decision is undoubtedly in the best interests of South Africa. It would have been most regrettable if this contentious measure had to be publicly debated, particularly at this time when our country is confronted with so many immense world problems. I am quite certain that in the calmness of a select committee atmosphere it will be possible to produce a measure which will prevent any political party from exploiting the Coloured vote for its own political advantage and that it will at the same time, after affording our Coloured people the opportunity of expressing their own considered opinion, be possible to produce recommendations which will settle the political status and representation of the Coloured people for the foreseeable future. I personally am very grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government for making this wise decision. I realize that with the Government’s enormous majority in this House it would have been an easy matter indeed to have forced this Bill on to our Statute Book. I am glad, however, that the hon. the Prime Minister was motivated by what was in the best interests of South Africa, and I earnestly hope that there will emerge from the deliberations of this select committee proposals which will prevent our Coloured people from once again becoming the political football of this country. I congratulate the Government on this wise decision.

Unlike the other two speakers on this side I, of course, have not been taken into the confidence of the Government as to its action this afternoon, so I have been unable to agree in advance about the step which the Government has now decided to take. I understand, since one could intelligently anticipate something like this happening, from the Press reports over the weekend, that the Rules of the House preclude me from opposing the content of the hon. the Minister’s resolution this afternoon, but that I can simply oppose the unopposed section of this resolution, which would simply mean a delay of one day in putting forward this resolution. On a point of order, Sir, that is correct, is it not?

The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I was in fact asking your advice on this score, whether I am correct in my interpretation of the Rules of the House.

Is the hon. member objecting or is she agreeing?

Unfortunately, as I interpret the Rules of Parliament, I am unable to object to this particular resolution. All I can do is to delay its introduction by one day, but I cannot speak in opposition to this particular resolution. Am I right, Sir?

This is hardly the time to ask the Speaker’s advice.

If the hon. the Minister who has introduced this motion, or the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Peninsula had informed me, as they were obviously informed beforehand, I could have consulted you, Sir. As it is, all I can do is to attempt to find out what is the correct interpretation of the Rules. Anyway, I will assume that I am correct in this and that all I can oppose at this stage would be the hon. the Minister’s resolution to-day that this is an unopposed motion. I am now trying to give myself 24 hours’ grace, in other words, to oppose this unopposed resolution to-day.

Order! If the hon. member opposes it, then it lapses.

Yes, Sir, then I will have the opportunity of consulting you about whether or not I can oppose further …

Order! Order! Is the hon. member objecting or is she agreeing?

Well, I think in the circumstances I will object and then I can find out the correct position.

Is the hon. member just thinking about it, or is she objecting?

Yes, I am objecting.

Order! Then I cannot accept the motion.

When we adjourned on Friday the Minister of Forestry had made a statement and I had replied very briefly in regard to his announcement that the Ngoye Forest in Zululand was being handed over to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and was to be used as a nature reserve by the Bantu, that Department to be assisted by his Department in so far, presumably, as the technical side of the undertaking was concerned. I do not propose to dwell on that any longer, except to ask the Minister whether it will be possible for him in due course to give us a more detailed explanation of the precise manner in which it is proposed to administer that forest, just what the machinery will be and what the intention is. whether it will be used as a place for the public to visit from time to time, or whether it is to be more of a reserve area, and if there is going to be limitation on the races of people who will be permitted to visit it. May I in conclusion then add to the few words I said on Friday in asking the Minister to contact the University of Natal who will be prepared to assist him in regard to naming and identifying the rare species of animals and lepidoptera that I referred to on Friday so that in the development of the area the habitat may not be made unsuitable for the continued life of those rare creatures which are to be found no-where else in the world but in that particular forest.

In regard to the wider subject matter of this Vote, the Minister gave us a statement here. He is a new Minister in this portfolio which has had a very chequered career at the hands of various Ministers. It is a great pity because it is an important part of the Government services and also of our economy. We have, for example, one factory I know of which is producing something like R9,000,000 per annum in hard currency from overseas as the result of the production of pulp which we sell in the open market. There is going to be quite a lot said in future, although not necessarily in this debate to-day, although I think my colleague, the hon. member for Mooi River, will have something more to say on this presently, but there is a great deal to be said for and against the production of pulp wood where it is associated with the possible drying up of streams, etc. I am not going to pursue that, but I just want to say that this development in South Africa has now reached a stage where so much money is being brought into South Africa as the result of the development of the forestry industry that I would like to ask the Minister not to cut off at once the work that is being done by his Department in regard to afforestation, but to ask him whether he cannot lay more and more emphasis in the direction of research. Research is a very expensive matter and while it is true that we have universities and private concerns, large companies, which spend considerable sums of money in connection with research, the State, it seems to me, can do so much more not only in regard to research into the technical side of forestry, but in regard to the use of timber and its by-products. In that regard I think the emphasis could well be laid there, leaving the growing of timber in the future years to come more to the private sector, which has now in certain respects passed the Government involvement. The private sector to-day has more timber, more acres of timber, under conifers, for example, than the Government has. This now means, I think, that the piloting by the Department of this industry, which was a new industry some 40 years ago, has passed that stage, and the private sector is now well launched and on its way.

In connection with research, one of the matters I should like to suggest again here is the possibility of the Department undertaking more research in connection with our indigenous woods. Various writers in connection with our forestry in this country have pointed out the dangers we run intending now to restrict ourselves to the production of one species of timber for our soft wood production, various types of pines, mostly. We have, in addition to that, of course, a tremendous new upgrowth of interest in the eucalypts for pulp purposes, etc., whereas wattle is tending to sink away now into the background because of the difficulty in the world markets. But I want to put in a word for the humble wattle which has served us very well indeed in years gone by, and to say to the hon. the Minister that notwithstanding what he said in his opening remarks on Friday, I hope he will not hesitate for a moment, if a suitable opportunity presents itself, to come into the picture and to use his influence as a predecessor of his did, the hon. Paul Sauer, when he was Minister of Forestry, to try to exercise influence in the direction of obtaining a better deal for the wattle-grower in South Africa, and not to leave it all to the industry. He referred to certain representatives of the industry who are negotiating at the present time in that regard. But I say I think the Department itself might consider dealing with native timbers. There are types of wood like the cussonia, which is a quick-growing timber. It does very well indeed and it gets us away from having all our eggs in one basket. There are many other varieties. But among the better-class woods, I have asked before for the possible use of Cedrus deodara, which is a very fine wood indeed, and will grow over very large areas. It is not so fast-growing as the types of conifers used even for sawwood purposes to-day, but at about 40 or 50 years of age the Cedrus deodara gives you a magnificent sawlog. And as I say, there are vast areas which can be afforested with it. It is a beautiful timber.

Mr. Chairman, when I look at the recent scientific developments, the recent developments where we have got what I think they call laminated beams, which is a completely new development in the realm of construction, something which is now using short lengths of timber which in the past were almost waste, and which is absolutely changing the whole concept of our civil engineers in regard to wide stretches of roofing, and so forth, without the need of supporting beams in the middle, I realize the importance of this development. Even in the case of steel beams, this new development can replace the old method of construction. This kind of development is taking place as a result of research, and I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that the emphasis be laid now more and more, as far as his Department is concerned, on the side of research rather than that of growing timber, except in so far as it is necessary for the geneticists in his Department to ascertain whether stronger strains of trees, healthier better strains, can be produced. Otherwise, on the commercial side I would like to suggest that he should leave that to the private sector and that the government side be in the direction of research on the growing, manufacturing and usage sides.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Forestry on his appointment as Minister in charge of this Department, especially as it coincides with the stage at which our forestry industry has reached maturity, has developed into one of the largest industries in our country. I also want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will experience less storminess in this Department but will experience more calm such as one finds in the spaciousness of forests and in nature.

It is only very unfortunate for the foresters.

Mr. Chairman, if we were now dealing with the other Vote of this hon. Minister, namely Sport, I would have been sporting enough to react to this unsporting remark by the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, the forestry industry has now reached a stage where it can be regarded as being one of the major industries in our country, an industry which can play an ever increasing role in the economic development of our country. In the latest Annual Report of the Department it is, inter alia, stated—

In other words, in plain language we may say: “An industry’s crop which takes a long time to mature, a crop with a slow rate of growth, is now maturing and is yielding revenue for South Africa.” In the Annual Report it is also stated that the total production of wood products from plantations increased by 18.3 per cent during the year covered by the Report, which is no mean achievement.

Sir, in mentioning these facts, I am also referring to the future expectations as regards this industry. Professor P. P. Deetlefs, previously on the staff of the University of Stellenbosch, said in a lecture a few years ago that it was expected that 164,500,000 cubic feet of soft-wood would be produced by 1970 by existing planatations and that 18 large new sawmills would have had to be erected by that time in order to cope with that production. In addition I may mention that considerably more than R400,000,000 has been invested in this industry and that this yields a production of industrial timber amounting to more or less R90,000,000 per annum. I may also say that approximately 75 per cent of our soft-wood planatations is younger than 19 years, whereas the felling age in South Africa for such trees is from 25 to 30 years, which gives one an indication of the tremendous extent to which the production side of this industry will grow during the very next few years.

This makes me wonder whether the time has not arrived for us to place the management of this extremely important industry as well as that of the Department in charge of this industry on an entirely different basis. The position is that 77 per cent of our sawmills handling this product is privately owned. But because forestry products play such a key role in our economic development, I am convinced that much greater success and better results can be achieved in future if the production of forestry products as well as the utilization of those products is transferred to a company operating on a basis similar to that of Foskor. Because timber plays such an important role in our economic development I feel, unlike the hon. member for South Coast, that afforestation should not altogether be transferred to private initiative. I feel that it may be placed in the hands of a company in which the State will also have authority, a company which may be managed under chairmanship of the Secretary for the Department of Forestry for instance. I am mentioning this point because I feel that the Department of Forestry, in view of the scope of its activities, is being restricted to a large extent by public service regulations, that it is being restricted by the fact that it has to wait for funds to be provided in order to be able to fulfil its business function and its exploitation function. I want to continue by saying that I feel that as regards the State sawmill industry we may continue on the course already adopted by the Department, namely that this may be left to private initiative to an increasing extent. I feel that the sawmill industry is in fact a private industry and that private initiative, in view of the fact that our forestry industry is spread over such a large area in our country, will all the more be able to cope with that industry. I also feel that, with a view to the further development of the industry, the Department of Forestry, like the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, should chiefly concentrate on the aspects of research—mentioned here by the hon. member for South Coast—and on aspects of planning and of extension services.

Mr. Chairman, because of the scope of the forestry industry the aspects of research, planning and extension services, are of the utmost importance and they are becoming more and more important. If one considers only the aspect of research and one compares the scope of this Department’s activities with that of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, one finds that in respect of the entire forestry industry the Department of Forestry only spends half the amount on research spent by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in the Western Cape alone, even excluding two large research institutions, namely the Food Technology Research Institute and the Viticultural Research Institute. Only half the amount spent by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in the Western Cape, with the exclusion of the amount spent on these two institutions, is spent by the Department of Forestry throughout the country. That must necessarily result in a shortage of properly trained professional officers for performing this major task of our forestry industry. One is also struck by the fact that after the latest salary adjustments, professional officers in the Department of Forestry have been placed in a comparatively less favourable position than professional officers in other departments and even foresters in the Department of Forestry who are trained by the Department itself. As a result of this wrong direction in salary trends there is not sufficient encouragement for people who wish to qualify themselves as professional officers in the Department of Forestry. They prefer to qualify themselves in the field of agricultural technical services or in some other field. Comparatively speaking one may say that a forester trained by the Department itself receives a salary as from the day on which he commences duty at the age of 18 years. If he has to undergo military training he receives compensation even during that period. The person who wants to qualify himself as a professional officer first has to undergo his military training without receiving a salary and then he has to follow a four year course at a university. This gives him a backlog of approximately R2,000 the day he joins the service of the Department as a professional officer. If one compares the salary scales, one finds that it is only upon reaching the age of 42 years that the person who has qualified himself as a professional officer at a university will draw level in total earnings with the forester who has joined the service of the Department immediately after matric. In addition the forester receives an allowance for uniforms and a house at a very low rental, whereas the professional officer has to compete for a house on the open market. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, in the limited time at my disposal I want to refer with a sense of gratitude to the tremendous progress which has been made during the past number of years in connection with the utilization and consumption of our South African timber, especially in the building industry. Not many years ago we in South Africa believed that if one wanted to undertake construction work—build a house—it necessarily had to be undertaken with timber imported from overseas countries. I think the Department of Forestry, the State and its research officers should be credited for showing by means of research, investigations, and experiments, that South African timber may be utilized to great advantage. In this respect we have made tremendous progress. This also applies to Departments such as the Railways and the Department of Public Works—as well as to the Provincial Administration—which in this respect in particular has taken the lead and has stressed and urged that South African timber should be used to the largest possible extent. To-day I want to mention that with gratitude. Time will show that that has been a very important development in our country’s forestry industry and that ways have been paved which hold tremendous possibilities for this industry in future.

I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to-day to refer to the work which is being done by the Department of Forestry at the Sederberg Forest Reserve. This particular reserve in the district of Clanwilliam is a relatively small reserve, but includes an area which is particularly renowned for the cultivation of the indigenous cedar tree. Unfortunately it is true that the cedar tree in that area has virtually been exterminated over the years, and we are grateful to know that the State is making an attempt through the Department of Forestry to protect this indigenous tree and to preserve it for posterity. In the Department’s Report for 1964 I read the following—

There was a time when we in the Western Cape were used to foresters or tree-fellers from that Sederberg area selling cedar-wood in our vicinity from time to time. I recall that in my childhood it was the practice that if a person wished to have a fine coffin made for himself he had it made of Clanwilliam’s cedar-wood. People believed that that was a virtually imperishable type of wood. Unfortunately it is true that that type of tree has virtually been exterminated. I have spoken to one of the oldest residents, one Mr. Nieuwoudt. of the Sederberge, and he told me that it was a great pity that the State started following a wrong policy at the time when it was decided that controlled fires should be completely eliminated in that area. He said what happened then was that the area simply became overgrown and that the unavoidable happened from time to time, namely uncontrolled fires broke out. These uncontrolled fires which occurred from time to time have virtually exterminated this type of indigenous tree in that area. At present it is virtually only the State which is promoting the cultivation of the cedar tree. What he offered as his advice, as his considered opinion, was that a policy of controlled fires should be re-introduced and that such fires should be systematic so as to protect the trees in the areas where they were growing—and that is more or less only at a certain height above sea-level. Now we are thankful to know that the Department of Forestry is adopting a serious approach to this matter, and we want to express the hope, although we know that it is an expensive method, that every possible endeavour will be made to prevent uncontrolled fires by means of controlled fires.

With your leave I should also like to refer to the work which is being done by the Department of Forestry in the Western Cape in the field of combating wind erosion. In this connection I may just point out that the Department of Forestry has taken over a property of approximately 2,000 morgen from the Department of Lands in the division of Vanrhynsdorp. Leases have been entered into with two land owners in that area. The Department of Forestry is giving particular attention to wind erosion on the land concerned. For the information of hon. members I may just say that there are various areas where an entire surface of 400 to 500 morgen of land has been totally destroyed by wind erosion. In other areas thousands of morgen of land are in the process of being destroyed. I think I am speaking on behalf of many people in the Western Cape when I refer with gratitude to this work, work which to a certain extent really falls outside the immediate province of the Department. I want to ask to-day that the Department should continue doing this work not only for rendering assistance to our farming community but also for showing to them what should be done. This is the type of long-term investment which most of our farmers simply do not like very much. They are not keen to invest in that because it is quite expensive. But where the Department of Forestry is doing that work and is proving that it can be done, it is rendering active assistance as regards soil conservation. It is setting an example which is worth following and where experiments are also made it is showing people the way. We mention this with gratitude.

In addition I want to ask the Department to give consideration—and this applies mainly to the district of Clanwilliam—to conducting further experiments, particularly with various types of gum trees, in the vicinity of the railway line between Het Kruis and Graafwater where large areas of cheap ground on which there is an average rainfall are still available. I have in mind the saligna which thrives in other parts of our country, particularly the East Coast areas, and which is a commercial type of tree. I trust that the Department will give consideration to conducting experiments in this area, which has a reasonably hot climate and where, as I have said, cheap land is available, so as to determine whether it will not be possible to develop plantations in this area, even on a commercial scale, in the course of time. We should very much like to see that happen. We are mentioning that particularly on account of the fact that the railway line passes through that area which makes the exploitation of such a plantation so much easier.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the privilege of the half-hour? To begin with, I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for South Coast who expressed our concern at the fact that this is now the third Minister who has handled this Department in three years. I feel that this is a matter worthy of comment because of the importance that this Department has in our lives in South Africa. It deals with a very, very important sector of our rural life, particularly as far as the farmers are concerned, and I should like to quote some figures to show just how important it is. I quote the following facts from the Financial Mail—Special Survey—dated 26th August, 1966, to show some of the achievements which have been made by the forest industry in South Africa—

I think this is a very, very significant achievement on the part of our people here in South Africa. I quote further—

That is where we have revolutionized the whole timber industry throughout the world. We have from artificial forests built up this tremendous complex of industries. The report in the Financial Mail continues—

I think this is very significant. The part played by the Department itself in this was, of course, vital, as was also stated by the hon. member for South Coast. It was vital in starting off the timber industry in our country. The position has been reached to-day that the State and Bantu Trust sawmills, in close co-operation with the private industry, control over 300,000 acres of the more than 1,000,000 acres which are in production to-day in the timber industry; private farmers some 400,000, private companies some 280,000, and municipalities 25,000 acres under timber. The State and Bantu Trust sawmills convert only 17.5 per cent of the country’s sawlogs and only 41.5 per cent of the logs coming out of State and Bantu Trust plantations. Eventually the State will mill only 5 per cent of its own sawlogs. In other words, answering the point made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. they are handing over practically all saw-milling operations to private industry. What is important is that there should be no disengagement on the growing side. I quote further from the survey—

This is in addition to the 300,000 acres which they already have under timber. The Survey continues—

That, I think, is a full-time job. That makes it a department which, I believe, deserves the attention of a Minister who will be given control of this portfolio for more than one year at a time. When it appears to us, as it does, in view of the retirement of the hon. the Minister of Finance which we see announced in the papers, that there may be a reshuffle of Cabinet portfolios, then we are in a difficult position. This Minister has admitted, and he makes no bones about it—and I give him full credit for it—that he knows nothing of the portfolio and the forest industry, and he is beginning to learn. [Interjections.] He admitted at the Timbergrowers’ Congress that he was in this position, that he was beginning to learn about it. We hope that he will now be allowed to continue to learn about it, that it will not be taken away from him but that this portfolio will remain in his possession for a considerable period of time. It is impossible for anybody to learn all about the timber industry in a short period of time, and I hope—though it may be the worse of two evils; I do not really know—that it will be entrusted to the Minister and that he will retain control of it.

It is interesting to note that the hon. the Minister is Minister of Sport and Recreation, of Forestry and of Tourism. I want to ask him whether he has any ideas as to what kind of sport he is going to provide for the tourists in our forests.

Have you any experience in this?

I ask the Minister this advisedly, because he will remember that when he came to our Timbergrowers’ Congress in Pietermaritzburg he made a plea there that the forest industry should open their forests to the tourists. I do not know whether hon. members have ever seen a whole congress simply go white with fright. It certainly happened on that occasion. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has any further intentions in that regard. It is something that can be done, and I am quite prepared to concede that the jaded people who live in towns, could well find balm for their souls in the forest areas. But it would have to be very strictly controlled, and I am wondering whether the Minister has any plans on the part of his department to do anything of that nature, either in the State forests or in consultation with those private forest-owners. Because, Sir, this is inviting certain disaster unless it is very, very carefully controlled.

You will have to take their matches away first.

The problems involved with this department are these. You have involved here the Government on a very large scale, private farmers and also large companies. I believe that the task of the Department is to attempt to co-ordinate and to reconcile the individual interests concerned. One of the complicating factors is that the private farmer is a person who is inclined to chop and change. When something looks good and the markets are booming then the private farmer tends to jump in and to start planting or take part in that market. When it starts to sag he tends to pull out. I believe that is not a satisfactory basis on which we can run the timber industry in our country. It is by its very nature such a long-term investment and commitment that it should not be entered upon lightly. I believe that one of the first tasks of the Department should be to draw up a scheme of some sort whereby the needs of industry, the timber industry, the pulp mills, the sawmilling industry, can be rectified and coordinated with the Government planting and with the planting by the private farmers and by the private companies.

The hon. member for South Coast mentioned the wattle industry. Members will remember what happened to the wattle industry, some ten years ago, when it was booming, when it was called in Natal in an article the the Farmer’s Weekly “the weed of wealth”. All you had to do was to plant wattles and in ten years’ time you were going to make a fortune. During those years 1955-6-7, the area under wattle practically doubled. But not one single grower who planted wattle at that time is going to reap any of that crop. They will reap a proportion of it which will hardly make worth while the tremendous investment they made at that time in the wattle industry. Those of us who were in the wattle industry saw our markets simply collapse before our eyes, by reason of the tremendous involvement of other people in that particular industry. I believe that that is something which we should be very careful to co-ordinate, to ask the Minister’s Department to co-ordinate the demand and supply offered by the private sector and by the State Also it must keep an eye on the possibility of export markets for the timber industry. Because I believe that we are coming to the stage in our country to-day, particularly in regard to small saw-logs, pulpwood and that sort of thing, where we are getting beyond the local consumption, and we will have to be looking for export markets on that basis, although whether it will be permanent or not, I do not know. I do not believe that we will have a permanent surplus in this country, either of pulp or of timber. I believe that we will see in our time a very great increase in the use of paper. We are using, I believe, something like 80 lbs. per head per year whereas in the U.S.A. it is something like 476 lbs. per head. I think that with the expectations of rising standards of our people you will find that there will be a tremendous demand for and an increase in the use of paper made by our population. Mr. Chairman, I think the greatest problem that has to be faced is the question of plantings, by private companies and by private growers. I think that there can be very great conflicts of interest, because the farming community obviously with to participate in this market, and the companies have to ensure that they have an adequate supply of timber for their future needs. When he made a short statement opening this debate on Friday, the Minister mentioned the appointment of the Private Forestry Committee, which will be charged with this question of co-ordination and, I believe, will make a full and searching inquiry into the present resources of the private timber growers.

I want to explain the position of the private growers. This is a sociological question as much as a financial or economic question. The private grower is a private farmer, a man who has a status on the land. I believe that that is something we have to protect with all means possible. We must protect the position of the White farmer on the land who is there, I believe, as the representative of White civilization in the countryside. If it can be brought about by action on the part of the Department that participation in this market is ensured to the White farmer, I think that the Department will have done a good job of work. We need new plantings. There is no question about it. Sir. We have to have increases in supplies of timber, which the processors themselves are not keen on planting. It ties up immense amounts of capital. One company in Natal recently bought up five or six farms, which cost them R1,000,000. That gives one an idea of the amount of money involved when this kind of afforestation is undertaken.

Another point I should like to make is the effect which the planting of immense tracts of the countryside by timber companies has on the water supplies. Quite honestly I believe that this is something which we could debate in this House as a point all by itself. This is something which is going to have a vital effect on whole areas of our country, particularly in Natal, where this is becoming a question of the most pressing urgency. The Minister has appointed the Malherbe Committee—people who are experts in many different fields—to inquire into the problem. I wonder whether the Minister would not be well advised to make a selective banning of planting in catchment areas. It may well be that when the committee reports—and I do not know when it will report, it may be within a year or two—he will find areas which have been ploughed up and planted in respect of which he is going to insist that the timber which has been planted be removed. The question is: When you remove the timber, what do you do with the ground which has been ploughed up? I think that the question of the planting of catchment areas will have to be left until the report of the committee is received. I do, however, suggest that the Minister make investigations into certain areas. I have already mentioned to him a certain farm, namely Rockvale, in the High Flats area. If the timber dries up the water supplies, it will completely deprive of water 18 farmers living in a valley farther down. I think that this is a matter in respect of which action should be taken now. I do not believe that we can wait. There is a great drop in height to the people farther down. It is a semi-bushveld area. They are beef farmers. They are dependent on that stream for water supplies for their cattle. Should this development take place and the land be ploughed and the area afforested, it may well spell ruin for these people. I do not believe that we can wait for the report of this committee, which will then take time to be implemented. I believe, Sir, that it will surely be possible to determine certain marginal areas, where the rainfall is a certain number of inches, in which this ban can be applied. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister the difference between afforestation undertaken by private farmers and that undertaken by companies. The private farmer is a person who can select a site. He has his normal farming operations going on. He can put in timber to suit himself and to take up areas of his farm which are not being used economically by his other farming interests. A private company, by reason of the high amount of capital involved, has to afforest every available inch in order to make the project profitable, and to obtain the maximum return from it.

I should like to come to the part played by the State. The hon. member for Stellenbosch raised this matter. I wonder whether the Minister has ever considered whether the State might not now withdraw from the actual planting and the exploitation of the forest areas by means of long-term leases to private companies on the basis of a sustained yield. There are arguments for and against this. I believe that the private sector has to-day become so strong in the timber industry in South Africa that they can well afford to take over from the Department and run the production side and the exploitation side of the forest industry. I welcome any comment the Minister may make on this point. It is merely a thought which I put forward. It may cost a bit of money. It is a problem, I know, but people who are doing this sort of thing from the point of view of exploitation will be making a profit, and they may be able to carry it.

Another point which occurs to me is the liaison with the Bantu Trust. Vast areas are being planted to-day by the Bantu Trust. I wonder whether the Department will have a say in the extent to which areas under the control of the Bantu Trust will be afforested. I have said already that I believe we are going to reach the time when we are going to have an over-supply of certain types of timber. This is something which can be done readily in the Bantu areas. They have plenty of available labour. It offers them a secure investment. It is something which they will be able to harvest in the course of time. But I do not think that we can afford to have unrestricted planting. One must remember that the Bantu areas in this country are some of the best-watered and the best-suited to afforestation in the whole of South Africa. I believe that there may be a potential clash of interest between the Department of Forestry and the Department of Bantu Administration and the companies and the private farmers in respect of the afforestation which is taking place in those areas. The Bantu Trust will be dependent on the great processing firms, but I would not like to see a clash of interest develop between White farmers who are producing timber for the processing firms and the Bantu Trust as an organization allied to the Government.

About three years ago the then Minister, Mr. Sauer, suggested that there might be a new approach. It was touched on again here by the hon. member for Stellenbosch, namely whether a business administration side of the Department could not be developed. I think that there is a great deal which could be said for that. The Department has two distinct aspects. One is the afforestation and the planting of new areas and the planning thereof. The other side is the marketing side, which is of very great importance. I wonder whether the Minister could make a statement on the result of the visit overseas made by the previous Minister and the Secretary last year. We have heard nothing about it or about any of the specific recommendations that were made, the results that flowed from that, and whether any specific recommendations are being made in regard to research or anything like that. I believe that that was a most important visit. I think that it is something which can only be of benefit to this industry in South Africa. I would appreciate any information the Minister can give us in regard to this matter, because I think that we on this side of the House would certainly like to hear about it and know what is going on.

I should now like to come to the question of moving the research premises of the Timber Research Institute from where it is at present, and of going into new lines of research. The hon. member for South Coast mentioned this point. I believe that there is a great deal that can be done. I understand that much work is being done on tree breeding. After all, most of the types of timber that we plant here are exotic and have come from outside our country. I think we can with considerable advantage pursue this line of breeding better species which are better suited to the conditions in South Africa. I should like to know whether there is going to be a close linkup and what the nature of the link-up will be between the universities and the S.A. Bureau of Standards and the Department itself in regard to the research which is being undertaken and the amount of money which is being allocated for research into various aspects. Then there is one further matter and that is the question of subsidizing the private grower of timber. In the Department of Agriculture, as we know, the planting of pastures is subsidized, and I wondered whether it would not be feasible for this Department to subsidize the planting of timber to private growers. This is a very long-term undertaking; it is something which involves an immense amount of capital. There are many farmers who would like to go in for the planting of timber on a bigger scale and in that way solve the problem that I have dealt with, the problem of ensuring supplies to the processor companies. I wonder whether this Department should not adopt the same approach as the Department of Agriculture, which grants subsidies to farmers for the planting of pastures, so that the private grower can go in for forestry and afforestation on a bigger scale than he is inclined to do at the moment because of the capital cost involved. I would welcome any statement that the hon. the Minister might like to make in this regard.

Then I want to touch on one further point arising out of the Minister’s brief report when he opened the debate, and that is with regard to experience overseas that timber tends to maintain supplies of water and to control erosion and to prevent the silting of streams and deltas of rivers. I think I am inclined to agree that that is the case overseas where you have long rotations, where trees are felled in cycles of 100 or 80 years, but I feel that with the short rotations that we have in this country —10 years for wattle, seven or eight years for gums and 15 to 30 years for pines—that the ultimate benefit of afforestation is never attained because the water supply is used up during the period of establishment and we are not getting the benefit of the long period of 40 or 50 years following that period, from which you could be expected to benefit, because of the growing conditions which are so much quicker and stronger than those in Europe. I believe that this is something that we have to watch very closely indeed. It is something which can be of vital importance to the other sections of our farming industry, because I believe that the timber industry is part of the farming industry; it is something in which the private farmer has a very vital stake indeed, a stake which I believe has to be maintained. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to regard it as part of his task to see to it that the role played by the private farmer in the forestry industry in our country is not only maintained but increased and made more important.

I should like to agree with some of the points raised by the hon. member for Mooi River at the end of his speech but before going into some of them I think that it is necessary for me to give the hon. member for Mooi River the assurance that we do not have the problem which they apparently have. Even if we would only allow a Minister three days’ time to become acquainted with his portfolio, it would be sufficient time for him to become fully acquainted with that portfolio. This is proved by the fact that we have already had three Ministers of Forestry and that the forestry industry has grown from a virtually insignificant industry to an industry with an annual turn-over of more than R40,000,000.

That has happened in spite of your Ministers.

In spite of these things I just want to say that the problems facing us in Natal in particular—but I accept that they also apply to other parts of the country as regards forestry—do not really involve departmental measures and the investigations which have been undertaken up to the present time, nor the scientific information which has been made available, because hon. members opposite also praised the work which has been done. We are facing the problem that at present 2,120,000 acres of land have been afforested in the Republic of which 633,333 acres are under State control and 1,488,333 acres are under private control. Of this acreage under private control, approximately 555,000 acres are in the possession of municipalities and 591.111 acres in the possession of companies. I want to make the point here that these companies which own the 591,111 acres mainly process the wood themselves. Then there are 844,444 acres in the possession of private farmers; this is the figure for last year. According to the survey for 1960 there were 3,331 private farmers and in this connection I want to venture dealing with a matter of a somewhat more delicate nature. These large companies upon learning that an interim report was going to be presented by March of this year—this knowledge they acquired subsequent to the announcement by the previous Minister of Forestry that he had appointed a commission of enquiry with certain terms of reference— went and bought thousands of acres of really good agricultural land on which there is an average annual rainfall of 40 inches or more. They used large machines for fallowing that land and they are now engaged on planting trees in case legislation should be introduced seeking to prevent them from playing a similar role to that which has been played in the wattle industry. I shall shortly come to that because it was also mentioned by the hon. member for South Coast. We do not want to find ourselves in the position that we as private farmers will have to approach those people after a certain time to ask them to buy our wood and that we shall discover at such time that there is such an extent of over-production and that the factories provide in their own requirements to such an extent that the prices offered for our wood would be so low that we would simply be forced out of the industry. We know that the Minister’s function is the promotion of the forestry industry, and as regards that we are squarely behind him, but that should most certainly not be effected at the expense of our good agricultural land on which we have to produce food for ourselves and for generations to come, because once land has been afforested, except in the case of wattle-bark trees, that land has left the hands of the private farmer for all times. It is interesting that in 1960 there were 1,577 private farmers who had less than 500 acres of land and 3,011 who had less than 90 acres of land for afforestation. A number of large companies, including one which bought five farms in one year and spent R1,000,000 whereas its profit really was R8,000,000—we still do not know what happened to the other R7,000,000 —bought or took options over 332,000 acres of good, ploughable agricultural land on which there is a rainfall of 40 inches and more in Natal during the past year. We feel that saturation point will be reached before long; that these companies will be self-sufficient and we fear that we as private farmers will in the first place not be able to compete with them on the labour market. If the large companies provide in their own requirements they determine the price for the final product. They can then load the price for the final product with the costs of labour, something which the ordinary farmer cannot do. This stage has already been reached at the present time. As regards the buying of these 332,000 acres of land to which I have just referred, I want to agree with the hon. member opposite who referred in this connection to a certain farm, the farm Rockvale, in the district of Ixopo. Mr. Chairman, I have here a map which can be inspected by any hon. member who does not want to believe what I am going to say, but I want to give you the assurance that if that particular farm is bought 16 farms will be without water within the next three years. If measures with retrospective effect are not taken to restrict this unsound situation which has developed in our forestry industry, we shall find that the neighbouring farmers will find themselves in the position that when their water dries up they will have to sell their farms at lower prices. These few large companies, which are now forming monopolies in Natal, have already reached the stage where they no longer want to take the full production of the farmers. I have written evidence that a certain farmer offered a certain quantity of wood to these private firms and that only half that quantity was taken. The position has deteriorated to such an extent as regards certain types of wood that if one is not situated near a station one is no longer able to produce at a profit, with the result that deforestation is already taking place on a large scale. I am now speaking of black wattle in particular.

What is the solution?

The solution is very simple. The solution is that this matter should be placed in the hands of this commission of enquiry without having any fear that one would be stepping on the toes of these large, moneyed companies. These are not the people who form the heart and soul of the farming population; these are the people who are only interested in dividends and they do not care whether their water dries up or whether their land deteriorates as the farmer who have to make provision for the future of his child has to care. That is the solution. Then I want to say that the condition in my constituency of Vryheid has become so serious that over a distance of 21 miles between Greytown and Rietvlei, for instance, 21 miles of unbroken forests have been bought from the private farmers by the large companies. There the condition has developed that the small farmer is completely out.

I want to conclude with these few words because I unfortunately do not have as much time at my disposal as my hon. friend opposite. I just want to make the statement that some of us have realized for quite some time that the wattle industry, together with all the accompanying factors responsible for that industry, would head for a disaster, because the people who processed the bark planted the large plantations themselves. It reached a stage where a system of quotas was applied and even at that time that 90 per cent of the farmers with an acreage of less than 500 acres, to whom I have referred, found themselves in the position that in the application of the system of quotas they were unable to make a living on a basis of one-sixth of their mature trees and had to offer those trees—something which is still happening at present—at half their value to those large companies which apparently were not affected because they destroyed some of their trees in order to cultivate sugar. They have the capital to do so. For that reason I want to content myself with these few words. At a later stage, when we come to deal with agricultural technical services, we shall probably come forward with practical suggestions requesting the Government to co-ordinate this Department so that it may devise a plan for us for the promotion of this industry in areas and on land which are available but which are not being utilized at present owing to some reason or other, either through a lack of labour or a lack of enterprise, but not on the ploughable parts required for future production, so that those areas may be utilized.

Therefore I want to express my gratitude for this opportunity and I want to give the Minister of Forestry the assurance that as regards our farmers in Northern Natal we already at this stage accept his efficiency, and he may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I must say I am very pleased to find that the hon. member for Mooi River is so keen for me to retain my position as Minister of Forestry in the Cabinet. I did not expect it to come from the Opposition. I can assure him that I will bring it to the notice of the hon. the Prime Minister. In regard to the matter of the shuffling of Cabinet posts, he said he read in the paper that the hon. the Minister of Finance might or would be retiring, but he probably also read the reply of the Minister of Finance to that. The Minister quoted Mark Twain, in whose case there had been a report in the Press of his untimely death, and Mark Twain replied that it was a gross exaggeration. All I can say to the hon. member is that he should be satisfied with the words of the Minister of Finance.

I will cut as short as possible my reply to the other points raised in the debate, but I would like to say to hon. members that not only I, but my Department, will go into the matters raised, and where it is possible to convey information to them we will do so. In the meantime, on the matters on which we can convey information immediately, I should like to submit the following.

The hon. member for South Coast referred to the Ngoya Forest Reserve. Previously it was a forest reserve, but now it is a nature reserve. My impression is, from the point he raised, that he considers this to be an improvement because now, in the form of a nature reserve, the position is that no unauthorized person can cut, injure, collect, destroy or remove any forest products.

Is it a nature reserve proclaimed by the Forestry Department?

No, it was handed over by the Forestry Department to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development as a nature reserve, under the management of the Forestry Department. But as a nature reserve, these things cannot take place. There cannot be any injuring or collecting or destroying or removing of any forest produce. When it comes to the mammals referred to by the hon. member, there cannot be any disturbing of game, bird life or fish life. They cannot be destroyed or hunted. The whole object of the nature reserve is to protect the natural fauna and flora in that reserve.

By what authority does your Department declare a nature reserve?

No. the nature reserve was proclaimed by the Department of Bantu Administration under their Act of 1936, but the only point is that we are not excluded. We are retained as far as the management of that area is concerned. Therefore, I would say that the avenues which will be allowed for research by universities and research officers will still always be open to them and the public will have access to it, on permit. The race factor does not enter into it. Both Whites and non-Whites can enter the area with a permit. We hope that the hon. member and the Natal Parks Board and everybody who has suggestions to submit to us will do so because we are anxious to retain that area in its natural state and to preserve the fauna and flora there.

In regard to research I can tell the hon. member that the Department spends R150,000 on research, but it has also contemplated the building of a new Research Institute. I myself went to see our Research Institute in Pretoria West and I realized that that is almost an industrial area, and that if one really wants to think in terms of a research station as such, one will have to go outside the complex of the Pretoria industrial area. These matters will have the attention of myself and my Department. I might also add that the whole basis of it is really to create more research into wood technological surveys and to see in what way we can supply the private sector with as much information as possible.

In regard to laminated timber, compressed board, I was also pleasantly surprised to find what the hon. member for South Coast referred to, that you do not just have to have one long piece laminated together; the strength of the laminated joint is almost the same as that of an ordinary piece of timber. I am convinced that with the chemical developments in regard to pulp one can almost say that the grower of timber, whether it is a State forest or a private forest, has found that the demand has increased to a tremendous extent. And with the latest chemical developments and the modern methods that are being used, I would say that the timber grower can look with a certain amount of optimism to the future as far as the marketing of his commodity is concerned. As far as the wattle industry is concerned, the hon. member knows that it is an autonomous body and the whole object was that the Minister should not interfere with the autonomous body that was created, or should only interfere when it was absolutely necessary. I have had discussions with them, I have listened to the matters raised by them in regard to their export marketing problems, and I am satisfied that in those directions they are in a far better position to negotiate, to come to decisions and to assist the industry as a whole. If at any time they wish to consult me, I am always happy to do so. In fact, I have got a meeting with them, I think, in a matter of a week or so when they want to raise certain points with me. I was most impressed by the quality of the people whom I met at our meeting in Pietermaritzburg.

The hon. member raised the question of the private sector as against State enterprise.

Not against State enterprise, but in relation to.

The suggestion came from the hon. member for Mooi River that in fact the State should pull out of the afforestation schemes it has and either rent them or sell them to the private sector. Sir, I have always been in favour of what we call private enterprise. According to what I have seen and studied, I am satisfied that the timber industry could never have developed in this country if the State had not come in as it has done in the past. Therefore I am reluctant to interfere with something that has undoubtedly benefited South Africa tremendously. However, the hon. member subsequently referred to large concerns that are growing up. Hon. members will appreciate that in afforestation tremendous amounts are involved and many of these schemes could only be financed by large companies. However, it is something that is already giving us food for thought. However, I still have to be convinced that there must be a radical change in the system of State afforestation as run by the State and that the State should no longer bear the burden and lease them to private enterprise. But it is a matter that undoubtedly will crop up from time to time, and as far as I am concerned, I might be in a better position to argue those points and then probably some of the technical points dealing with timber and forestry of which, I quite admit, I still have quite a lot to learn.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch congratulated me on the taking over of this new portfolio. He expressed the hope that this would be a more peaceful department and would be more enjoyable to me. Unlike the hon. member for Durban (Point), I am not naturally a man of peace. However, I realize that a tree is a thing of beauty and that only fools can make a poem about a tree.

“Jy is tussen die boom en die bas.”

On the matter of professional salaries, I would say to the hon. member that the whole scale of professional salaries is controlled by the Public Service Commission and it affects all departments. You cannot have different professional salary scales applying to the Department of Forestry as against, shall we say, the Department of Agriculture. Therefore it is really a matter controlled by the Public Service Commission and there is nothing that I can do on my own as far as that matter is concerned.

As far as the reorganization of the Department is concerned, I can assure the hon. member that I have no revolutionary ideas that I want to put forward. I realize that this Department has grown over a period of many years and the basis on which it has grown has in my opinion been a healthy one. There may be changes which may take place, whoever the Minister may be, and I will listen to whatever representations are made.

It grows in spite of the Minister.

I do not think the hon. member grows. I know the Government grows and the Ministers grow, but the Opposition does not.

The hon. member for Piketberg referred to the Clanwilliam cedar. I can tell him that we have started to plant these in the reserves. We have endeavoured to introduce them on a number of experimental plots. Unfortunately there was great damage by rodents, but nevertheless the process is going on. With regard to the matter of the type of timber or trees that should be grown along the railway lines—I think he referred to the Graafwater line—that is also a matter which the Department will go into.

I come to the hon. member for Mooi River and I would say to him that as far as his reference to the meeting in Pietermaritzburg is concerned, when I put forward the suggestion that forests should be open to the public, I quite admit that it was not unanimously welcomed with enthusiasm by the people present.

That is an understatement.

Nevertheless, I have been to the Tokai Forest and I know many people in the Cape who have enjoyed the peaceful atmosphere of the Tokai Forest. Also as far as the Eastern Transvaal is concerned, I must say that in the forest you find a beauty and a stillness and a placidity which people who live in the towns never experience. I hope that a basis will be found whereby not only the State forests but also the private forests can be opened up to tourists under some strict supervision. I think that in a large country like South Africa—although it is large it has not got many beautiful places these forests can supply a need and more and more we shall have to think in terms of a lot of people, and if possible we should get away from the idea that because it is private property, nobody dares to put his foot inside. I understand from the owners themselves that they are frightened stiff of possible fires. One can appreciate that. A forest fire can create great devastation, but I am sure we can find a solution, as they have done in other countries, to that problem.

I did not intend to bring sport into the discussion, but I am quite prepared to hear what the hon. member who has had so much experience in that direction can tell me.

The question of the private grower as against State-owned forests, I have referred to already. The hon. member referred to catchment areas and he mentioned this farm Rockvale. I know the problem. I realize that there is a committee dealing with this matter and the idea is that they will put forward recommendations. The committee is not going to be a long-winded one, but in regard to a major principle of this kind I want to await the time when the experts of the various departments have been able to sort out the situation. I am not qualified to judge, and my Department itself will run into a lot of trouble even if it gives a ruling itself merely as a Department of Forestry. I would rather therefore hear what the other Departments have to say in regard to the water resources of the country. As far as the overseas position is concerned, as I have explained earlier, there is no basis on which the State could operate. You cannot grow forests on agricultural land. Apparently the economics of the situation have really allowed us to develop on the right lines, and the forests more or less have gone into the mountains and into the ravines. But this is something on which eventually we will get information.

With regard to the previous Minister’s visit overseas, with the Secretary of Foresty, I can just convey briefly to the hon. member exactly what they went to study—it has been passed on to me. I was to study legislation in European countries to co-ordinate the management of private forestry, to study the possibility of subsidizing private afforestation, to investigate the newest methods of forestry research, and the planning of a new forestry research institute. As I told hon. members, the report is in my possession. I could not give too many details but tried broadly to refer to some of the major points. Eventually I hope to be able to give hon. members much more detailed information on the various points.

I want to tell the hon. member for Vryheid that I appreciate the point he has raised. The only issue is whether we must adopt a principle which has never been applied in South Africa before. Before we do so, I think not only the Department but also I myself would like to ascertain exactly what the views are of the various people concerned with this particular problem. The inter-departmental committee on the catchment areas is in the meanwhile endeavouring to reach some basis on which legislation could be submitted to the House in order to overcome a problem of the forest industry which undoubtedly is of great concern to many people.

Would the hon. the Minister deal with the point I raised about experimenting with indigenous timbers. I mentioned some varieties. Are experiments along those lines likely to be undertaken?

I think the hon. member mentioned Cedara deodorus.

That is not actually an indigenous tree. I only mentioned this as a tree which can produce a high quality timber. But in addition to that I suggested that there should be experiments in regard to indigenous trees which the private sector cannot go in for. Some of them will take a long time to grow and only the State could undertake these experiments.

In the deodora issue, which the hon. member raised, I have a note here which says that the Department has in actual fact an area near Ermelo which is being planted with this type of tree.

You do not know how big the area is?

I think it is the Umfolozi Forest Reserve. I have no idea how big the area is, but I should imagine that as it is a forest reserve it must be quite a big area. As to the indigenous trees, I know the Department is experimenting all the time. I have visited certain plantations where they were in actual fact trying to see if there was an indigenous tree which would grow readily in South Africa where the ordinary trees which I will call imported trees are not suitable. I quite appreciate that research in that direction must be developed, and I observed that the Department was very anxious to overcome some of these problems and to get reliable information which we could convey to growers, because basically the idea is to interest the private grower in growing the best trees. There is a growing demand for information. I have seen the development that has taken place in the industry. The hon. member referred to the industry at Umkomaas. I was amazed to see the amount of timber that was used per day in this very vital export industry in South Africa. So I would say that there exists every reason for confidence in the future of the forest industry.

Revenue Vote and Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 35,—“Immigration, R6,177,000”.

Mr. Chairman, in this short session much time has not been set aside for the discussion of immigration, but in the time available we should nevertheless like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions. As the Committee knows, immigration is one of the matters about which a deep-seated fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition does not exist—at any rate, not at present; there was a time when the Government adopted the attitude that immigrants came here to eat our food and to oust South Africans out of employment, and adopted an indifferent attitude towards immigration, but since then they have learnt that the exact opposite is true, namely that immigration stimulates economic activities and that as a result of immigration new ideas enter the country and that that is to the advantage of everybody in the country.

Therefore, in the absence of a deep-seated fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition in regard to this matter, our task is actually to see what is the real objective of the Government as regards immigration, the extent to which that objective agrees with that of ours, and how the Government is implementing it.

I want to start by trying to obtain certain information from the hon. the Minister. There are of course two kinds of immigration: natural immigration, i.e. immigration of people who themselves are eager to emigrate and to come to South Africa, and then there is planned immigration, and of that there are also two kinds: planned or encouraged immigration through private bodies, and encouraged immigration through State planning. I realize that it would be extremely difficult for the hon. the Minister to tell us precisely how much of the immigration is State planned and how much is natural; but I nevertheless wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us an indication of the percentage of immigration flowing into South Africa at present as a result of State planning. It is anticipated, according to a statement in a speech made by the Minister, that approximately 50,000 immigrants will come to South Africa this year. Is it possible for the hon. the Minister to say what percentage of that number of 50,000 will come here as a result of planning by the State? I am asking that specifically, because it will facilitate our assessment if we know what percentage came here as a result of the planning of the State, the extent to which the State is realizing its objective.

In the second place I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister could give us just a brief survey of what his objective with immigration really is. With that I mean, what his policy is aimed at. Is it the chief objective of immigration to reinforce the numbers of the White population? Is it to obtain additional trained manpower? Or is it to replace Black labour by unskilled White labour? Or is it all three of them? And if it is either one or all three of them, can the hon. the Minister tell us whether the emphasis is laid mainly on reinforcing the White section of the population? I am putting this question because I think that it is important to know, before one judges whether or not the Government is successful with its immigration plans, what the objectives are. Because, if it is, for instance, the chief objective that the White population has to be reinforced, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether 50,000 are sufficient, or whether his ultimate aim is a considerably greater number? We should like to know what the hon. the Minister’s ultimate aim is, what figure would he say would be sufficient in the light of his actual objective. We all know that the ratio between White and non-White as regards numbers has not improved over the past years; in spite of the increase in immigration, we are approaching the position that where the ratio between White and non-White was still approximately one to four in 1961, we have already passed the point of one to five, and we are now approaching a ratio of one to six. That is why it is to my mind important to know—if it is the chief objective of the Government that the White population has to be reinforced by immigration—whether the rate at which it is taking place is rapid enough and whether it is possible for the Minister to hold out the prospect that the rate can be accelerated in the near future.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied with the nature of the immigration as it is taking place to-day. Up to a few years ago the emphasis as regards our immigration policy was placed on immigration from our countries of origin—Holland, Britain and Germany, especially Britain. The position has changed now. In the first six months of this year approximately 25,000 immigrants came to South Africa, i.e. 8,700 more than in the corresponding six months of last year. The largest group are still Britons. I am only furnishing round figures, and the hon. the Minister can tell us whether they are correct: Britons, approximately 6,000 of the 25,000; in the second place we now have Portuguese from Portugal and the Portuguese territories with approximately 4,000; Germany is third with 1,700; Italy, 1,100; Greece, 1,000; and Holland 600. In other words, the number of immigrants from Holland is at present only 15 per cent of that from the Portuguese territories. That is a drastic change in our immigration pattern and we must assume that the change in the pattern will continue. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this pattern was planned in this manner, or whether the pattern developed as a result of a lack of success in effecting more immigration from the countries of origin. We know that the new pattern of immigration is presenting us with certain new problems. My experience of immigrants from Mediterranean countries, and in particular of the Portuguese, is that they are good immigrants who work hard and do not take long to make themselves at home. However, as one may expect, they are inclined to live together in certain areas.

In my constituency in Johannesburg there are in parts entire streets which have been taken over as it were by immigrants, in this case mostly by Portuguese. It would of course have been ideal if these newcomers could have been prevented from grouping themselves together, but I do not think that there is anything anybody can do about this. However, the children are the ones who really matter, because it is they who will eventually become full South Africans. That is why I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he and his Department are interesting themselves in the period after the immigrant has settled in our country. After an immigrant and his children have settled here, does his Department go further and help them to adjust themselves to the South African way of life? There is, for instance, the question of schools. The Government is following a policy of separating Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking children at school, and to my mind that places the immigrant child in a very difficult position. With the exception of a small number of Dutch immigrants, the large majority of immigrants find themselves in the position that they have to send their children to English medium schools. I think it has been estimated that within the next ten years some 110,000 immigrant children will go through our schools, and that of that number 100,000 will go through English schools. Nothing is of course the matter with this, and I hope that I am not misunderstood on this point. It is the right of any immigrant, once he has become a citizen of a country, to have a free choice as to the cultural group with which he wants to integrate. That is not the problem. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about what the National Party had in the past not wanted to do at first, but was nevertheless doing at present. It is a fact that the immigration we have to-day is planned immigration. We do of course still have voluntary immigration as in the past, but owing to the industrial development of our country the Government was obliged to resort to planned immigration in order to combat the White man-power shortage in our country. The desirable rate for unemployment is 4 per cent while unemployment of 2 per cent is regarded as full employment. At the moment our rate of unemployment in this country is only 1 per cent and that means that we have a great shortage of White skilled labour. To meet this shortage, we are trying to get White skilled labour from Europe. As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has rightly observed, we are trying to recruit these immigrants in our countries of origin in the first place. However, we must realize that in England, for instance, there has been a high rate of employment in recent times, and that is why we have been finding it more difficult to attract immigrants from the British Isles. Germany itself is experiencing a shortage of skilled labourers and in order to alleviate its man-power shortage it is therefore obliged to import its own labour from Italy, Greece and Turkey. Therefore it was difficult to recruit a large number of immigrants from our countries of origin. Owing to difficulties which are now being experienced in Britain, unemployment is beginning to result there and that is why we expect that there will be a greater influx of immigrants from the British Isles.

We have planned immigration because we do not want to bring people to South Africa without assuring them of a means of livelihood. It is for that reason then that there has to be certainty before an immigrant is approved finally that he will obtain employment in South Africa. At the same time this gives our South African citizens the guarantee that immigrants will not be allowed into the country to take work out of their hands so that they may be turned into the street. Our South African citizens can therefore rest assured that the Government will see to it that they, as well as the immigrants, will be provided with employment.

I do not know whether I should suggest that the Minister and his Department should pay more attention to Belgium with the aim of seeing whether we cannot persuade more Flemish citizens to come here. They are people who will adapt themselves to us with ease and who will make good citizens. However, I cannot say whether we shall be very successful because in Belgium, too, there is a reasonably high rate of employment and there are therefore few unemployed workers.

Immigrants are important to us, not only for meeting our shortage of skilled White labour, but also for helping us to develop our industries. Immigrants come here and they help us in our attempts at increasing our exports and at the same time they create a bigger domestic market. All of this contributes towards promoting our industrial development.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout touched upon one little matter in regard to which I also want to say something. He referred to the fact that the number of immigrants from Portugal and the Mediterranean countries has become so large. I want to assure the hon. member that this is not being done purposefully. What happens is that the number of people from these countries who have applied to emigrate here is greater than that of other countries. I want to emphasize that all immigrants, i.e. irrespective of their countries of origin, are subject to the same methods of selection, and that no immigrant will be brought here unless employment is available to him. Because there have been a few cases of undesirable persons entering the country, there has been a measure of unrest amongst our people. However, investigation has brought to light that these people did not enter the country by means of the normal immigration channels, but that they used forged immigration documents and came through in that manner. Then there are of course still those people who did not enter the country by the instrumentality of the immigration office, but simply entered the country across our borders. It is of course impossible for us to guard all the borders of our country all the time, and that is why it is possible for undesirable persons—I do not call them immigrants— to cross the borders of our country. We can be sure that the Department will not allow undesirable persons, i.e. persons with bad records, to enter the country.

In conclusion I want to thank the Minister and his Department heartily for the good work they have done by recruiting so many immigrants this year. I think that we shall have a record number of immigrants this year. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said earlier on, it is generally expected that we shall draw approximately 50,000 immigrants this year. That is a great deal more than the 40,000 we drew in the record year, 1964. I want to express the hope that the Minister and his Department will yet have great success with their immigration campaign.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to finish the point I was dealing with. It deals with the question of schools. It does of course not matter whether the immigrant child goes through an English or an Afrikaans school. That is not my point. But what I think is a pity, is that a system should continue to exist under which immigrant children are placed in the position where they do not make proper contact with both language groups, but where they will in practice actually remain separated from one language group, and, what is more, from the largest group. It seems to me as though it is not sensible, seen from South Africa’s point of view, that such a thing should be allowed to happen. Nor is it fair, seen from the immigrant’s point of view, that he should find himself in a position where his child must only have contact with one language group until he is 17 years of age. That is why I raised this matter and asked whether the Government had investigated this matter thoroughly or whether it had any plans in that regard.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has made any study of naturalization trends. Of course, none of us likes the idea that a person should be forced to become a citizen of our country. As a matter of fact, I do not know whether either side of this House supports the idea that anybody should be forced to become a citizen of the country. However, in going through data concerning naturalization, it is striking that certain groups become naturalized more readily than others. That is why I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister is making a study of naturalization trends, and whether he will on the basis of that give special encouragement to the recruitment of those groups showing the tendency of more readily becoming naturalized and full citizens of South Africa. Then one still hears complaints all the time in regard to the immigration machinery. Only last week I read in the Press—

Similar complaints in regard to alleged unnecessary delays also appear in the Afrikaans Press from time to time. What is the hon. the Minister’s reaction to this? We should like to have the assurance that we are not losing good immigrants owing to shortcomings in our immigration machinery.

Mr. Chairman, it is not often that one is in a position to agree readily with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but in these days we are experiencing such remarkable things on the part of the hon. the Opposition. I find myself in a position where I agree wholeheartedly with him as regards his reference to the 110,000 immigrant children who will have to pass through our schools within the next ten years, and also his reference to the fact that those children should not come into contact with one language group only. We are grateful that the hon. member is adopting this attitude, because we also feel that it would be wrong if this large number of immigrant children were to come into contact with one language group only. I am therefore grateful that this House is at least unanimous about the importance of the fact that those children should come into contact with both language groups.

Then the hon. member raised the matter of naturalization trends. I should like to point out to him that we are in fact thoroughly aware of those trends. In this regard I want to furnish the following figures to him: In 1960, 2,130 immigrants were naturalized; in 1961, 2,240; in 1962, 4,056; in 1963, 5.029; in 1964, 4,556; in 1965, 4,538 and during the first six months of 1966, 2,669. These figures create a very favourable picture, particularly if it is taken into consideration that the State-aided immigration scheme got into its stride and was finalized only in 1962. In the year 1961 there was still an emigration loss of 2,824. In the years preceding 1961 our annual gain in immigrants was only approximately 3,000. If that is compared with the figures as regards naturalization since 1962, which I have just furnished, we have to admit that the naturalization trend is most favourable. In addition, it should also be emphasized that since the State-aided immigration scheme actually got into its stride only in 1962, and since an immigrant has to be in South Africa for a period of 5 to 6 years before he can be naturalized, it follows that we shall be able to assess the value of the naturalization trend among immigrants only as from next year and the following years. In other words, 5 or 6 years after the State immigration scheme got into its stride. From personal experience I want to emphasize that immigrants are very eager to be naturalized. It is my experience and also that of the South African Cultural Academy and other organizations that co-operate in this regard that immigrants are eager to be naturalized. I am convinced that as from next year we shall have a strong rise in the naturalization trend in South Africa.

That brings me to the other point I should like to make. We forget so easily that our South African people are in actual fact an immigrant nation, and that every South African who has ever lived was either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant. Sir, I do not want to sound learned in this regard, but permit me to tell you that immigration throughout the world is accompanied by two features in particular, which are known scientifically as emotions of xenophobia—antagonism to foreigners —and nativism—to keep the nation pure by preferring well-established compatriots to new immigrants. That has been the tendency in America throughout its 300 years of existence. That is the tendency in England at present and it is the tendency throughout the world. South Africa is no exception to that rule. It is because we appreciate that and should be aware of those tendencies which have always accompanied immigration throughout the world, that I am pleading this afternoon that we as a people should be positively attuned to immigrants and not negatively. I want to plead for less criticism against immigrants once they are here—people whom we need here in South Africa—less prejudice against immigrants, a more truly South African attitude, and positive thinking. I am convinced that if there were more of that, we would gain the large majority of the immigrants for the South African State and for our good South African way of life. We would also find that they actually have a most positive and important role to play here.

Sir, it is interesting to consider how important immigration can be in the life of a modern people. That is evident, for example, from the fact that since 1607, that is in 359 years, more than 42,000,000 people have emigrated to the U.S.A. By means of immigration and the resultant population increase through birth, the U.S.A. grew in 360 years to a nation which consists of more than 200,000,000 people at present. I am not saying that we should do the same in this regard. The fact of the matter is that as we become more positively attuned to immigrants in South Africa, we shall be able to make very rapid progress along that way. In this regard I want to point out that while we are struggling to find a solution to our quite unique and most complex race relations problem, we cannot afford to entertain antagonism against other Whites who are not jeopardizing our existence and who are in agreement with us on many things in South Africa.

The next point I want to raise is that if we consider the actual immigration figures we see that our gain through immigrants in South Africa is still extremely small. In this regard I want to remind you that some years ago the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister instituted a very thorough enquiry. They arrived at the conclusion that purely from the economic angle a net immigration influx of at least 30,000 immigrants a year was needed merely to provide for our present economic circumstances. If we look at the figures, we find that the position is as follows: As against 377,000 immigrants who entered South Africa during the period 1924 to 1961, 247,000 emigrants left the country. Of those 247,000 emigrants who left the country, no fewer than 229,000, i.e. 92.7 per cent, were English-speaking people. If we look at the post-war period 1946 to 1961, we find that we gained 268,000 immigrants. During the same period we lost 177,000 emigrants. Of those 177,000 emigrants, more than 90 per cent were also English speaking, that is, no fewer than 165,000.

Another matter I want to mention is that there has lately been a great deal of discussion about Portuguese immigrants. I believe the Department tried to curb the illegal entry of those immigrants. It is most important, however, that we should also have due regard to the facts in this connection. The fact of the matter is that of the 4,942 Portuguese breadwinners who entered South Africa during the past 18 months, only 502 were unskilled. The rest of them were all skilled. Those 502 unskilled persons were fishermen, gardeners and shop assistants—the very jobs for which we do not have enough people available. All of them, according to information received from the Department, had offers of work when they arrived in South Africa. That shows what a great demand for workers there is in South Africa. The employers simply snatched them up. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, there are two points which the hon. member for Primrose has raised with which I wish to deal. I agree with him in regard to the first point, which was raised originally by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, namely that it is desirable that immigrants coming to South Africa should get to know both language groups of our people. I was extremely pleased to note that the hon. member for Primrose had adopted this point of view. I hope that he will extend this point of view to the logical conclusion that it should not only be immigrants who should get to know both language groups in South Africa, but that our own South African children should have the same privilege for which he pleads in respect of the immigrants. It is not going to help to have our immigrants being good South Africans if we keep our own children separate from each other in the schools. Therefore, when we talk of giving immigrant children an opportunity to meet both language groups—I accept the sincerity of the plea of the hon. member for Primrose; I believe he really wants that to happen but I hope he will join with us in extending that same privilege to both Afrikaans and English-speaking children who are South African born.

In regard to the other point, I cannot agree with the satisfaction expressed by the hon. member for Primrose as to naturalization figures. Of course we are all happy that the figure has increased, but I do not believe that it has increased enough. I hope that the hon. member’s optimism is justified. I hope that more will be done to try to encourage immigrants who take up permanent residence in South Africa to become fully fledged South African citizens. I believe that if South Africa is good enough for a person to live in—it is a country in which they are to earn their living and enjoy the pleasures of life—the least we can ask of those people who have become permanent residents of our country is that they should be prepared to give their loyalty to the country, to become citizens and to play their part in the affairs of the nation.

I hope that the whole attitude of South Africans towards immigrants will be one of welcoming them, not only through the organizations and associations which exist but as private citizens. I believe that every citizen of South Africa should go out of his way, when he meets an immigrant, to make that immigrant feel at home, to make him feel welcome and to encourage him to become an integral part of our nation and our national life. I believe that that can be done far more effectively by individual personal contact, person to person, to make the immigrant feel welcome, than by through pious resolutions or wishes or even through formal organizations, although the organizations which do this job play a very vital part.

I would like to turn now to some of the administrative aspects of this Department. We are naturally all agreed that we would like to see immigration on a large scale but I do not think we want to see it at the cost of South Africa or the Government and the taxpayer being taken for a ride. One of the rides to which I refer is the free ride which can be obtained to South Africa by persons who apply to come out here as immigrants, taking advantage of the facilities offered by the Department of Immigration when in fact they have no intention of making this their permanent home. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that persons who make use of assisted passages to South Africa in fact intend to stay here and do stay here. I have three cases which were brought to my attention recently, one a young girl who eventually left again on the 29th May of this year who came out under the assisted passage scheme and who openly told friends that she just wanted a free trip out here and that if she had not met a nice looking South African she would have been gone long ago but that now she was tired of him she was going back. Then there is the case of two British girls who went to Australia. In Australia they found that their passports were impounded for two years before they could leave again. Having taken advantage of the Australian system they were obliged to stay there for two years because their passports were taken from them. Having now got their passports back they have come to South Africa. They have received financial assistance as well as accommodation and they are now talking of moving on again. They have spent six months here and they have seen enough of this country. Another case occurred in March this year. Two people came to South Africa by sea and stayed at a certain hotel in Durban at Government cost. They are now leaving for Johannesburg to see that part of the country and then returning to the United Kingdom. I do not know whether these are genuine cases. They have been brought to my attention as examples of abuse of the system and I bring them to the Minister’s attention so that he can either assure me that this could not have happened or assure me that steps will be taken to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

The other matter that I want to touch upon is the one which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and that is the question of delays in dealing with applications. Like the hon. member, I too have heard of case after case where people who wish to come to this country send in their applications, and after about the third or fourth or fifth letter in six, seven or eight months of shilly shallying they say “to blazes with South Africa: if they do not want me I am going somewhere else”. I have had cases of this kind reported to me in correspondence by the persons concerned themselves who have said: “I had fully intended coming out to South Africa, but after waiting for a reply and a decision for six months, I am now going to Australia.” I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what the reason is for the delay in dealing with an application, from the time it is received by the relevant office overseas to the time when the person is given authority to come out here. I had one case where a job was actually waiting here for an immigrant from a neighbouring territory. A vital job was waiting for him here, and the fact that he was unable to come was holding up the manufacturing process of the firm concerned. Eventually, because of the delay in getting a decision, this person came in as a tourist to work here for three months while his application was being considered, because the work had to be done. He eventually applied for permission to enter as a tourist and came in as a tourist to guide and assist this company. He then went back again and I still have not heard whether his application has been agreed to. This happened some three or four months ago. I dealt with this case myself and I was told that it might still take another two, three or four months before finality could be reached. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that steps are being taken to eliminate this sort of delay and the loss of immigrants which we are bound to suffer as the result of delays of this kind.

Another point that I wish to raise is the question of information officers on ships bringing out immigrants to South Africa. Does the Department still have information officers? If so, on what grounds are these persons recruited; what qualifications do they have to have and what sort of information are they giving? I know that at one stage there were such persons being used and there was some criticism of the sort of information which was being given to the immigrants. If there are no such people, I would like to ask the Minister what steps are taken by the Department to inform immigrants of the facts and the details which they ought to know? Finally, when the immigrants arrive here what steps are taken by the Department of Immigration to ensure that housing is in fact available? I would be the last to say that we must ensure that there is a house for every immigrant before they come out to South Africa, but the present procedure is that the Department of Immigration simply pays for the accommodation, and with the critical shortage of accommodation which there is at present, it would seem that the Department has taken no trouble to ensure cooperation with the Department of Community Development or to ensure, in co-operation with private enterprise, that there is in fact housing for the immigrants who come out here. This applies particularly to my own city, Durban. [Time limit.]

At the start of his speech the hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to a remark made by the hon. member for Primrose in connection with the ideal that the children of immigrants should in due course become suitably bilingual. The hon. member for Durban (Point) then said he hoped the hon. member would also apply the ideal to our children.

That was not what the hon. member for Primrose said.

No, the hon. member for Durban (Point) said that he hoped it would also be the ideal of the hon. member for Primrose. Mr. Chairman, bilingualism is often talked about in this House by hon. members of the Opposition. As regards bilingualism I want to say that, generally speaking, the Afrikaans-medium schools accomplish more than the English-medium schools. Secondly, I want to put this question to the hon. member: Where is there a private school that is a parallel-medium school? The private schools usually use the English language as medium.

Order! The hon. member is off the point.

I only wanted to make that point and I shall leave it at that. We know that it has happened time and again that the strengthening of the flow of immigrants has been insisted upon on the part of United Party politicians and also on the part of commerce and industry, allegedly to solve or help to solve our manpower problem. We know that people seldom think in terms of our net gain in regard to immigration. We often talk, for example, about the arrival of 40,000 immigrants, but our country’s net gain is only 30,000 odd. The United Party has often in the past accused the National Party of actually having taken over or imitating the immigration policy of the United Party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred again in passing to this matter during this debate. I want to refute that argument once and for all. This argument was also adduced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition during the no-confidence debate last year.

It is still true.

In this connection I want to refer to the programme of principles of the National Party as laid down in 1937. It reads as follows (translation)—

Without mincing matters I want to say that this has always been the policy of the National Party; it constitutes the basis of the immigration policy of our party. The basis of the policy of the National Party is, furthermore, careful selection, and hon. members of the Opposition are most certainly aware of this. All aspirant immigrants are very thoroughly screened. In other words, immigration takes place on a selective basis. The selection control of the Government, with its State-aided immigration scheme, has thus far proved most effective. Our immigration policy differs widely from the immigration policy of the United Party, which always had an opportunist ulterior motive. I just want to remind the United Party of something that has been said over and over again in this House, although I do not want to rub it in any more now. We know what Deneys Reitz said at the beginning of the forties in connection with the ploughing-under of Afrikaner, and what General Smuts said on 14th August, 1946. As we know all their motives were foiled when the National Party came into power in 1948, but the objective of the United Party has basically remained the same; perhaps it has been put more subtly and deftly. In this connection I want to refer to a speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to which the Star of the 4th December, 1956, referred. The Star wrote as follows—

Mr. Chairman, that cannot be selective immigration, because it will mean that, as the late General Smuts put it on occasion, one will have to allow “the good and the bad” to come here. In connection with the difference between our point of view on immigration, which is the Government point of view, and the attitude of the United Party, I want to make the following point for the edification of the United Party. The United Party recommended at a congress in Natal last year that immigrants should be recruited as members of the United Party, the purpose being, of course, to swell the continually dwindling ranks of the United Party. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a glaring example of opportunism …

You do not know what you are talking about.

It seems to me that I am most certainly right; that is why the hon. member for Durban (Point) is so sensitive about the matter. The immigrant has hardly set foot on land here and has hardly had the opportunity to acquaint himself with conditions in the Republic when attempts are made to induce him to join a certain party! The attitude of the National Party is well known. It has in mind that every immigrant should become a full-blooded Republican and a true South African as soon as possible, and, having done this, then seek a political home for himself.

I just want to refer briefly to the question of the after-care of immigrants, a matter in connection with which hon. members of the Opposition put questions to the Minister. In particular I want to refer to a body in Pretoria that is doing very good work in this connection and whose work is having excellent results. I refer you to the Pretoria immigrants committee. I have here a report on the activities of the committee during the period 1st July, 1964, to 30th June, 1965. Unfortunately, I have not received the latest report. I want to recommend highly the work done in connection with after-care by this body and other bodies of the same type. Perhaps we do not thank these bodies sufficiently for the sacrifices they make in doing this work. I just want to mention one item to show what is being done by this body. During the period 1st July, 1964, to 30th June, 1965, 753 immigrants visited the offices of the Pretoria immigrants committee. I think it is an outstanding achievement on the part of these bodies that they take so much interest in immigrants and try to keep in touch with them. [Time limit.]

In the first place I want to correct a statement made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat in relation to a statement made by the hon. member for Durban (Point). The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to contacts. He did not make any reference whatsoever to bilingualism and I would like to make that clear. What he referred to was the question of contacts and nothing else. He feels that all immigrants coming to this country should have contacts with the racial groups of the country, especially the White groups. That is what he said and I think we must get away from any acrimonious discussion relating to the question of bilingualism.

The point, that I wish to ventilate, is one which exercises my mind very considerably. The Government, having after many years taken over the policy of the United Party to take active steps to introduce immigrants into this country, is now having a fair measure of success and with that we can have no quarrel. Sir, when immigrants are brought into a country it is done for one or two reasons. The first reason normally, is to fill large tracts of land, which need occupation for the development of mineral resources and other types of wealth with which the country is endowed, and the second, of course, is to reinforce a particular group of people in the country, so that that group’s future survival may be assured.

So far as we are concerned, I think our main object in wanting large numbers of immigrants is not so much to develop our resources and our wealth to a greater extent than they are being developed at the moment (we have been told that we are living in an over-heated economy, as it is), but to reinforce the White group by introducing immigrants of their own kind. That seems to me to be the main purpose and object of immigration, and with that we can have no quarrel either. I would say that the persons who should be encouraged to come here are those from northern Europe who are of the same type as those who comprise the two large White groups in this country, and, to a lesser extent, people from southern Europe.

I say that because I find that there are large numbers of immigrants in this country who are so dark that it is difficult to distinguish them from Coloured people. I am referring here to immigrants from the Mediterranean countries who, through no fault of their own —it may be just the sun that burns them brown—are dark. Sir, we know that in terms of Government policy Coloured traders have been ejected or put out of the urban areas. I am referring here to Asiatic grocers, greengrocers and Coloured persons following similar trades. By whom is their place taken? Their place is taken by none other than the persons to whom I referred a moment ago. I submit that the Minister of Immigration in making his selection of immigrants, should bear in mind that we have a large population of Coloured persons in this country, who can do many jobs which need doing at the present moment, and who only require training, as I have said here on a previous occasion. Many of them are trained already and could do these jobs, if given the opportunity. Sir, my contribution to this debate this afternoon is designed to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact, that indiscriminate immigration, which, of course, has not been recommended by speakers here this afternoon, is not the answer to the problem of finding reinforcements for our White population.

At the same time I foresee difficulties because the White nations of northern Europe are not going to allow all their best technical persons to be transported to sunny South Africa. I think they are going to take steps to prohibit an exodus of technicians. If we are going to reinforce our White population I think our efforts should be confined to that particular part of the world. It is doubtful whether we will get many immigrants from the North American continent, but we can get them from northern Europe. I want to ask the Minister to take care that in his anxiety to introduce what might be called “Europeans” we are not doing an injustice to Coloured persons who are our brothers, although they need not be our brothers-in-law, and for whom certain hardships do occur when immigrants are brought into the same businesses, which they used to conduct.

The previous speaker referred to the taking of bread out of the mouths of the Afrikaner. I think that is a false attitude. I can also say that immigrants coming in and taking over the businesses which have been vacated, because of the law of the country, businesses which were formerly owned by Coloureds and Indians, subject them, the Coloureds to suffering just as great a hardship. Therefore, I do not think we should refer to any immigrant as taking the bread out of the mouth of any South African. I believe that any South African worth his salt will be able to make a living and to compete with any immigrant who comes in.

In conclusion, I would say that the purpose of immigration is, firstly, to reinforce the White group and, secondly, to develop our resources. I submit that our resources have the people on the spot in the form of Coloured men and women who are well able to assist in developing those resources, and that White immigrants who are coming to reinforce the White group should in my opinion come almost exclusively from northern Europe, from the countries which do not border on the Mediterranean. One sees people from the Mediterranean everywhere in this country, and they speak neither of our languages with any fluency. In most cases they are adults and they have hordes of children. It is hard to distinguish them from respectable citizens of this country who are Coloured, and who should share in our wealth and our opportunities.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout opened the debate by putting certain questions to me. In the first place he asked me whether I could give him any figures of immigrants who could be regarded as voluntary or those regarded as spontaneous immigrants who are recruited in the European countries, i.e. immigrants who receive State aid and are influenced by our recruiting campaign. I cannot give that information. We do not know. When an immigrant comes to South Africa, if he comes through some of the agencies we have, there is nothing on the papers to indicate whether he is a spontaneous immigrant or whether he has been recruited by these agencies, so I cannot give that information.

Then the hon. member asked me whether in this year we expect 50,000 immigrants. He said that was the figure being mentioned. I do not think that figure was mentioned by my Department; I think the figure was mentioned in the Press on one or two occasions. I cannot bind myself to any figure, but the present indications are, taking the figures up to the end of July, that we may come pretty near to the 50,000 mark. I can only commit myself so far.

Then the hon. member asked me whether I could give him any figures in regard to what we call the planned recruiting of immigrants from Europe. I have already answered that question, but I think this figure may assist him. I cannot give exact figures, but I can tell him that for 1965 we received 25,159 immigrants from Europe; and from the rest of the world and Africa we received 13,160, giving a total of nearly 39,000.

Then the hon. member asked me to give a short statement in regard to the purpose of our immigration drive; was it to strengthen our White population, or was it to cope with the economic upsurge, in other words, to supply manpower? The answer is that it is both. As the hon. member for Karoo pointed out, the first object is to strengthen our White population, but at the same time we only recruit skilled immigrants. The reason why we only recruit skilled immigrants is obviously because we require skilled manpower. So we achieve both objects in our campaign. We strengthen our White population and we strengthen our labour force.

Do no unskilled people come in?

No, the policy is to recruit skilled people only, but in the figures given by the hon. member for Primrose the Committee will have noticed that out of a total of just over 4,000 immigrants, i.e. breadwinners, from Portuguese sources, 495 were unskilled. When I say unskilled I mean they were semi-skilled. They were gardeners and café proprietors and fishermen, etc. So that the point is that we only, as a definite policy, recruit skilled immigrants. Then the hon. member asked me what the policy was in regard to “stamlande” or mother countries. Our policy is that primarily we put the emphasis on recruiting immigrants from our countries of origin, i.e. Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and France, but hon. members know that certain difficulties are placed in our way by some of these European countries. In Britain itself there is no restriction in regard to the recruiting of immigrants. We can advertise there freely. We send recruiting missions and there are no restrictions. In the other European countries, like Holland and Germany, and to a lesser extent Belgium, they do not permit us to actively recruit immigrants. For instance, in Holland, if we wish to make it known that there are certain jobs in South Africa which are vacant and for which workers are required, we have to approach the Dutch Government for permission to advertise. They scrutinize the advertisements and they either allow us to publish them or they do not. Similarly, in West Germany, and to a lesser extent in Belgium. [Interjection.] It does not apply to Italy, and, to a lesser extent, Portugal. [Interjection.] Of course the reason is that there is a tremendous shortage of manpower in Europe. They cannot fulfil their own needs. I believe in West Germany there is a shortage of 900,000 workers and they have even gone to the extent of recruiting 20,000 or 30,000 Turks to come and work in West Germany. In the Netherlands there is a tremendous shortage of manpower and they have recruited a lot of their manpower from Spain, Italy and Turkey, so one can understand that they are not going to assist us or any other immigration country actively to recruit immigrants. That is the reason why we are not as successful as we would like to be in getting immigrants from these Northern countries mentioned by the hon. member for Karoo. The same restrictions generally do not apply in these countries on the Mediterranean and that is why we get larger numbers from a country like Portugal. Let me just give the figures of immigrants for 1961 to 1965 from these various countries. From the United Kingdom, which is at the top of the list, we received 42,247 immigrants; from the Netherlands, 3,902, from Belgium 1,575, from West Germany 10,743, from Switzerland 1,412 from Austria 925, and from France 573, a total of 61,378. That gives the Committee an idea of the numbers from the various countries.

Then the hon. member asked whether the Department interested itself in the after-care of immigrants. My answer is that we do. After the stage is reached of settling these immigrants in South Africa our policy is not to allow them to be forgotten and to fend for themselves. We continue to assist them until such time as they become acclimatized, and we assist them to become assimilated in our South African household. Of course it is of the utmost importance that contact should be maintained with such settlers. I am indebted to the hon. member for Point who made this point very clearly and went further in making an appeal that South Africans, apart from the agencies which exist to assist these immigrants, should themselves assist these immigrants to settle down and become assimilated. The Committee will appreciate that this task of aftercare of immigrants is something which is very difficult to take charge of as far as the Government is concerned. To achieve this end hon. members will notice in the Estimates that there are three organizations which have been recognized by the Government and which are subsidized by the Government in order to assist in the after-care of immigrants.

Could you tell me how many they bring in?

I will tell the hon. member in a moment. I have the figures here. Do you want to know what the 1820 Settlers and the Southern Africa League bring in?

Yes.

There are these three bodies, the two I have just mentioned and the Maatskappy vir Europese lmmigrasie, which represents the Afrikaans churches and cultural organizations. The Maatskappy is concerned mainly with immigrants from the European Continent. The 1820 Settlers, of course, is British and the Southern League deals with settlers from Africa, Kenya, Tanganyika, etc. These organizations are subsidized by the Government and play quite a big part in the aftercare of immigrants.

Then the hon. member raised the question of the schooling of immigrant children. The hon. member for Primrose, I think, gave the reply to that question. The language question is difficult, of course. I am not talking now only about Afrikaans or English, but there are the other language groups. They have a free choice, i.e. the Germans, Italians, Spanish and Greeks, etc. They can send their children to any school they like, whereas the other two groups, the English-speaking group and the Dutch group from the Netherlands are bound, I think, by the question of home language and they are obliged to send their children to the schools which provide tuition in their home language. It is a question which is exercising my mind because I have had experience that there are many English-speaking immigrants who come to South Africa and who are anxious to send their children to Afrikaans-medium schools. They have a knowledge of the one official language, English, and they would like to send their children to Afrikaans-medium schools. They cannot do so in the Cape, the Free State and the Transvaal, but in Natal they can do so because there is a system of parental choice. It is something which might require attention and it is my intention at a later stage to ask the National Education Council to look into this matter and to see whether there is any way in which we can assist immigrants who want their children to learn either the one language or the other, or both languages, apart from the home language.

I thank the hon. member for Geduld for his contribution. He made the point that our immigration figure should be increased as far as Belgium is concerned. We have an Immigration Attaché in Brussels, with a staff. They do their best to attract immigrants, and our figures of immigrants from Belgium are increasing. I now want to deal with the second speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He referred to the question of naturalization tendencies and he asked me whether I would make a study of these tendencies. Well, I think the hon. member for Primrose gave the reply to that. This Department only came into being in 1961, five years ago, and the big immigration drive really only dates from 1961, so that all these immigrants from 1961 are now coming to the end of their five-year period. It is now a question as to whether they will apply for naturalization or not. I am totally opposed to imposing any conditions upon immigrants that they should become naturalized after a certain period. I think that would completely destroy the whole immigration effort. If you are going to tell an immigrant that after a certain period, five years, in South Africa, he must become naturalized, obviously he will not come. He does not know whether he will like the country or whether the conditions are suitable. I am not prepared to exert any pressure on immigrants to become naturalized. Naturalization is a privilege which can be obtained from the State and immigrants must themselves appreciate and realize that it is a privilege which is conferred upon them to make them citizens of South Africa, and in my view they should be only too glad to take the opportunity of becoming South Africans. I believe at the same time that both the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Primrose are correct when they say that South Africans should display more interest in immigrants and help them and make them feel at home and assist them to become assimilated. That very fact, I think, will encourage them to seek naturalization when the time arrives. Hon. members know, of course, that the normal period is five years, but we have allowed immigrants from Africa, and particularly from Kenya, to become naturalized after one year, and we have even taken them, many of them, into our Public Service without naturalization. When the time comes when they are eligible to apply, I have no doubt that the bulk of them will apply for naturalization. I may say that from time to time it is stated in the Press that there must be at least 300,000 or 400,000 immigrants in South Africa who have qualified for naturalization but do not apply for it. I do not accept that figure. I have no indication in my Department that there are so many immigrants who have not applied for naturalization. All I can do is to make an appeal to immigrants who have qualified by their period of residence, to apply for naturalization. I am sure most of them are happily settled here. They are making a valuable contribution to the country in all spheres of life and in fact many of them who have not become naturalized have even applied to do military service, but of course we cannot take them into military service if they are not South African citizens. I think this should be an incentive to immigrants, too, who enjoy all the advantages of South Africa and who see that this is a good country, that they should also be prepared to render military service and in order to be able to do so to become naturalized.

The Minister says the figure is not 300,000. Can he give an indication of how many there are who are not naturalized?

No, I cannot, but I am quite sure that 300,000 is an exaggeration.

Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout read a report from a recent newspaper to the effect that on account of the delays certain immigrants from Scotland—nurses, I think— were lost to us. It is true that there are delays, but they cannot be blamed on my Department. Take nurses. When nurses apply to come to South Africa, they have to make an application to the Nursing Council in South Africa for recognition of their diplomas and qualifications. I know from my own experience that this is where one of the delays occur. The Nursing Council is inclined to sit on these applications sometimes for long periods and then we have certain difficulties. There is apparently a lot of red tape in regard to the Nursing Council. We are doing our best however, to get the Nursing Council to co-operate and with some success because there is a tremendous shortage of nurses here and we would be only too glad to get these nurses from Scotland. We are doing our best to accelerate matters.

The hon. member for Point also raised the question of delays. It is true that there are delays, but when an immigrant applies to come to South Africa processing has to take place. They have to furnish certain documents like medical certificates, X-rays, educational qualifications, birth and marriage certificates, etc. Then the application is referred to various bodies, one being Security. Every single applicant has to go through a process of a security check. We have our means of making those checks. All that takes time. I agree with the hon. member that there are many cases where these delays seem to people to be quite unnecessary. I have gone into them from time to time where certain applications have been brought to my notice and I have been able to expedite matters. If the hon. member or any other hon. member has letters of complaint in regard to such cases of delay. I would be only too happy if they were brought to my notice.

Cannot you streamline the whole system?

The system is streamlined but there are unavoidable delays. In order to expedite the approval of applications, we have appointed our immigration attachés in our various offices overseas, as members of the Immigration Board. They can approve immediately, or disapprove, an application without referring it to Pretoria. That is the normal course, but there are many applications which on the face of them require further investigation, and they are sent to the Immigration Selection Board in Pretoria, which has thousands of applications to deal with and they have to await their turn in the ordinary way. That is where delay also occurs.

I thank the hon. member for Primrose for his contribution to this debate and I endorse everything he has said. I was particularly interested in the statistics he supplied to the Committee. I think I have dealt with most of the points raised by the hon. member for Point, except this. The hon. member said he would like to deal with administration and he raised the question of some visitors, or immigrants, who had come to South Africa and who had been to Australia previously. The words he used were that we had been taken for a ride. Well, it is a long ride from Australia to South Africa. That is something, of course, which is very difficult to avoid, but I am glad to say that there may be very few cases of this nature. I do not think there are more than one in 1,000 where we may be taken for a ride. We are very careful. We scrutinize the applications very carefully, but obviously one or two will slip through, and they come to South Africa and have a holiday, but the point is that they then have to pay their fares back to the country from which they came. They may get their R120 paid to come to South Africa, but they have to find their own expenses to get back to their own country. At one stage I did think of a scheme of requiring an immigrant that he should enter into some form of bond or security—in other words, to give us security that in case he does not stay in South Africa, say for at least a year or two, he should repay to us the State aid given to him. However, I abandoned the idea. I found that Australia had a similar idea and that it was not working in practice because when it comes to enforcing the undertaking the immigrant has given for a refund of the money his usual reaction is that he has not got the money and that he cannot afford it. It then comes to light that he is not worth powder and shot, and the claim has to be abandoned.

But they impound his passport for two years.

That I did not know. This is something to which I can perhaps give attention although I must say that I am not enamoured of the idea. The more restrictions you place on immigrants the more difficult it will become for us to attract them in open competition with Canada and Australia and New Zealand on the European market. I think the hon. member will realize that we must make it as easy as possible for an immigrant to come to South Africa if we want to attract him.

The hon. member also asked me about information officers. The position is that we have no information officers because the bulk of the immigrants to-day come to South Africa by air, although it is true that quite a few still come by ship. We have abandoned the idea of information officers. The hon. member also wanted to know what steps we took to inform an aspirant immigrant of conditions prevailing in South Africa. Well, we issue about seven or eight brochures to the various immigration offices in Europe, brochures in which is set out what conditions prevail in South Africa in regard to, for instance, education, income tax, house rent, cost of living, cost of clothes, etc. These brochures contain full information in regard to the prevailing conditions in South Africa and a prospective immigrant should therefore be well informed.

Was Mr. Culwick not one of the reception officers in Durban who had to tell people about South Africa?

No. He was in the Department of Immigration in Durban but he had nothing to do with the supply of information to immigrants about conditions in South Africa. Amongst his other duties he had to meet immigrants in the company of other officials when they arrived in Durban port and to see to it that accommodation was available for them until such time as they could get work. Finally, the hon. member asked me about housing. The hon. member of course knows that housing does not fall under my department but to illustrate how important an item we regard housing for immigrants let me tell him that I appointed one of my Deputy Secretaries to work in close liaison with the Department of Community Development in its housing schemes. He has been with that department for the last year or two. His job is to look after the housing requirements of immigrants. I think this experiment has so far proved to be a success. This officer has been able to indicate to the Department of Community Development where houses are required for immigrants in order of priority. This arrangement has worked quite well. I realize, of course, that there is a shortage of houses but, in so far as immigrants are concerned, we have managed to accommodate all of them. It is true that some of the accommodation offered was not as good as it could be or that sometimes it was more expensive than what the immigrant could afford. In many cases, however, my department has gone so far as to assist immigrants to enable them to pay a little extra rent. I want to give the assurance however that my department is watching this position very carefully. We will do everything in our power to see that suitable housing accommodation is provided for immigrants.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort who is not in the Chamber at the present moment, has assisted me quite a lot in Pretoria. He referred to the Pretoria Committee. May I remind the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he may be interested in this. That Committee does a lot of work in connection with the after-care of immigrants in Pretoria and I am indebted to the hon. member for Koedoespoort for having taken a leading part in the activities of this committee.

Let me tell the hon. member for Karoo that our first aim with immigration is to strengthen our White population. In that he will agree with me. He suggested that as far as immigrants from Europe were concerned, we should give priority to immigrants in the first place from Northern Europe. I agree with him. At the same time there are, as I have already explained, certain difficulties attached to this. I should also like to tell him that the immigrants we have brought from Greece, Portugal and Italy have been carefully selected. All of them are skilled workers, artisans and professional people. As such they have been of great value to us in overcoming the great shortage of manpower in South Africa. By and large our experience has been that immigrants, from these countries I have mentioned, have become good citizens. They are law-abiding and are prepared to work from sunrise to sunset. Furthermore, they are not so keen on trade unionism. As a matter of fact, we have no trouble from them whatsoever. They are good family people. I have been informed by some of the big industrial undertakings employing these Greeks, Portuguese and Italians on building contracts all over the country that they have proved to be very satisfactory. They are fulfilling a great want and that if it had not been for them some departments of our building industry might easily have collapsed. But they have assisted us and their contribution has been invaluable.

However, I think most of us prefer immigrants from our own countries of origin, but I have pointed out to this Committee all the difficulties in this connection.

In the short space of time allocated to me for my reply to this debate I think I have tried my best to answer all the questions put by hon. members. I can, however, go on talking about immigration for quite a number of hours but I do not think the Committee will forgive me should I do so.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 27,—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: Administration”, R2,120,000.

Loan Vote 0,—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing”, R500,000.

Revenue Vote 28.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General”, R62,397,000.

Revenue Vote 29,—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, R2,580,000.

Loan Vote D,—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, R24,760,000.

Mr. Chairman, may I please have the privilege of the half-hour? All of us had hoped that when we reached the discussion of these Votes, we would be able to report that general spring rain had fallen throughout South Africa, particularly in the drought-stricken parts of our country. But we regret to have to say that we are very sorry for those people who have not been fortunate enough to share in the abundant rain that has fallen, for example in the South-Western Districts, in certain parts of the Eastern Province, in certain parts of Natal and in certain parts of the Eastern Transvaal. We are still deeply aware of the fact that there are so many parts of South Africa that are still suffering under an oppressive drought, surely the most oppressive drought South Africa has ever experienced. When we discuss this Vote, we should therefore do so in full awareness of this terrible drought, and it is only natural that that must place a damper on our discussions here. We on this side of the House, and I am sure that applies to the hon. the Minister as well, are in sincere sympathy with those people who are still suffering under the drought. It is surprising how the farming population of South Africa can still hold out under such circumstances, as they have in fact held out until now.

There are certain phenomena in our agriculture, particularly as regards its economic angle, that remain as clear as a pikestaff. One of those is that despite the increase in the gross agricultural product in South Africa in recent years, as again in the past financial year, the individual farmer in South Africa has more to be concerned about than to be proud of. Although the position of the farmer may to some extent be attributed to the current drought, it is also a fact that on the part of the authorities there has been no decisive action in the past eight years to face up to the difficulties of our farming population. All the warnings that came from leading figures in the field of agriculture, all the warnings that came from this side of the House and even the warnings that came from commerce and industry were swept aside with arguments, such as those I am going to mention now, addressed to the farming population in South Africa. On various occasions the farmer was asked whether the problems of our agriculture were not the result of the fact that the farmer of South Africa was living too extravagantly. He was frequently asked whether the fundamental problems of the industry were not the result of the fact that he was paying too much for his land. He was also asked whether his skill in management was not inadequate in these new, scientific and modern times in which we are living. The farmer of South Africa was frequently told that the State could not guarantee him his prices. The farmer of South Africa was also asked: Is it not in fact your trouble that the unit on which you are farming is too small? Is it not in fact the unit on which you are farming that is uneconomic; is that not in fact the difficulty you are experiencing? And if an appeal was made to the Government, it was frequently said that the Government did not want to interfere because “we should not like to have State farmers in South Africa”. That kind of advice was given by various people—frequently by well-meaning people, but it was frequently also given by people who should have known better. If was frequently also given on the part of Ministers. It also came from the hon. the Minister himself. It came from the Deputy Minister. It came from the previous Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. In other words, we looked everywhere for excuses for our inaction and those excuses were emphasized, instead of guidance being given to the farmer of South Africa. But the most ridiculous argument—and I am convinced that it will again be raised in this debate—was, if we on this side of the House spoke about the agricultural industry, that we were no longer representing the farmer of the country. That was a red berring, and it was in that very respect that the Government was doing the agricultural industry of South Africa its greatest disservice. For surely the most important point in this House, and particularly in this Committee, is not to what an extent you are supported by the people outside. It does not matter what the numbers of their votes are. One measures an industry, one measures a sector by its importance. Whether or not we want to admit that, the agricultural industry in South Africa is still responsible for more or less 40 per cent of our total export production. More or less R5,000,000,000 has been invested in the agricultural industry. We know that there are some 100,000 farmers and their families who are dependent on it. We also know that some 2,500,000 non-Whites— Coloureds and Bantu—are involved in it and have to make a living from our agricultural industry. That is apart from commerce and industry, which are also based to a large extent on our agricultural industry. I say the Government regarded the farmers as natural supporters of their policies. The Government accepted them as such and left the matter at that. They then forgot to place the agricultural industry as such on a sound basis. [Interjections.] It is something to weep for. I would not say this is the place to do so, but it is really something to make one feel bad, that that situation should obtain in South Africa.

I am forced to-day to ask certain questions as to what a wise Government and a wise Minister should have done under those circumstances, and are to do under those circumstances. In the first place the warnings from agricultural quarters should have been given effect to long ago. But those warnings fell on stony soil. Even three or four years ago the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) introduced a motion in this House and asked for a searching commission of inquiry into our agricultural industry. But on that occasion the Minister and his supporters on that side told us that there was nothing wrong, and that request was turned down, until the Nationalist Party congresses themselves compelled the Government to see to it that a commission of inquiry was appointed. Even those warnings from agricultural congresses, that called for a searching inquiry, were rejected because the Government considered that it would harm their prestige if they appointed a commission of inquiry.

I want to say that the motion moved by this side three or four years ago, was an attempt to move the Government to action. I am convinced that requests from its own congresses and the requests on the part of the S.A.A.U. were also aimed solely at moving the Government to action. Because certain aspects of our agricultural industry had been investigated very thoroughly on many previous occasions. I want to refer, for example, to the study group on agricultural financing. There were inquiries into the cost of mechanization. There was the Verbeek Commission on drought feeding. There was also the well-known commission on the population of the rural areas or, as we know it, the depopulation of the rural areas. In all those reports the Government’s attention was drawn, if not to the agricultural problem in general, then to specific agricultural problems. In other words, the files of our Departments of Agriculture should be crammed with some illuminating report or other about any and all aspects of our agriculture. I will not be told that they do not have a solution to the agricultural problem. All that was lacking was action. As I have said, that request that a commission of inquiry into our agricultural industry should be appointed, was aimed solely at moving the Government to action of some kind, and perhaps it will give rise to action in the future.

I should say a wise Minister and a wise Government should have realized long ago that long-term planning could not be replaced by short-term solutions, which are merely temporary measures. I should say that a wise Government and a wise Minister should have compiled a list of priorities for our agricultural industry long ago, which would have affected all farmers and not only a specific section of the agricultural industry. Let us consider production costs, for example. Production costs affect not only the vegetable farmers, for example. They affect every one of them, whether he is a grain farmer, a cattle farmer, a wool farmer, a cherry farmer or a tomato farmer—every one of them is affected by the rising trend in our production costs. What could the Government have done about that? To what extent was it due to the Government’s own commissions and omissions that there has been this tremendous increase in production costs? I am inclined to say that it is not only items like artificial fertilizer, fuel, tractors, labour and that kind of thing that are responsible for the high production costs. The burden of interest carried by the farmer is also one of the major items in his production costs.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a speech made only a few days ago by Mr. Frans van Wyk, chairman of the S.A. Woolgrowers’ Association. At the Congress in Pretoria he said, inter alia, the following (translation)—

A considerable percentage of wool farmers will soon be entirely dependent on State aid … I want to emphasize strongly, however, that we cannot bear the additional burden of R10,000,000 which has been forced upon the farming industry as a result of increases in commodity prices under the Marketing Act, and with the sale of wool by auction at international prices as at present, and the severe and protracted drought, that is virtually the last straw.

He tells us, and he also tells the Government, the following (translation)—

He points out that during the depression years of 1932 that measure helped to keep many farmers on the land. Even the chairman of the Wool Board, Dr. Van der Wath, asks the following question—

These things apply not only to the wool farmer; they apply to virtually all farmers. It is not that the farmer of South Africa refuses to accept a decrease in the price of his product. He is prepared to accept that, on condition that there will also be a decrease in his production costs in some way or other. As long as his profit margin does not become smaller and smaller, the farmer of South Africa will not be dissatisfied. He will be quite contented. But it is simply because there is this increasing trend in production costs that the farmer’s profit margin is becoming smaller and smaller.

Now, Sir, hon. members on the opposite side ask, “What do you suggest?” Many things may be suggested. Many things may be said. [Interjections.] For example, the Government was responsible for the recent increase in Railway tariffs on certain agricultural products. There were increases in the Railway tariffs on certain essential items that the farmer needs to be able to produce. Is it impossible for the Government to give attention to that type of thing and to do something about it? Why was it possible for the Government to reduce the burden of interest on farmers in the years 1932 and 1933? Is it not something that should enjoy the consideration of the Government? Hon. members ask, “What do you suggest?” I said a moment ago that I was convinced that the files of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing should be crammed with reports and solutions, with everything that could be done about the matter.

And yet you want another commission.

But of course, surely I have said that, and I gave the reasons why we had asked for that commission, namely so that some action could be taken on the part of the Government.

It is quite correct that production costs are one of the most important items that cause more and more farmers to leave the land as a result of the fact that they can no longer make a decent profit. Why is the farmer’s position different from that of the trader or the industrialist who also wants to make a profit in respect of his product or his business? Surely he also has a standard of living to maintain. Surely he also wants to give his children the best possible education. Surely he also wants to send them to a college or a university. He should therefore also be entitled to a decent dividend on his undertaking.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I must say that there is one thing that has helped the farmer of South Africa, and I recently read that in an American periodical. The report read as follows—

Is that in America?

That is a concept that applies to the farmer of South Africa too. I repeat—

The unavoidable question is how long this state of affairs can endure, where the farmers’ profit is becoming smaller and smaller. It is a problem that is also causing concern to the American farmer and the American Department of Agriculture. It is no use saying that the modern farmer is specializing more, that he is producing more, that he is mechanizing to a larger extent and that he is living better because there has been inflation. The present state of affairs, where the farmer’s profit is becoming smaller and smaller, simply cannot continue.

You are now representing an urban constituency.

Mr. Chairman, my concern about the city dweller is just as great, and I shall tell that hon. member why. The hon. member for Langlaagte should not forget that one of the major reasons why we are experiencing difficulties with our agricultural industry here in South Africa is that the public of South Africa will in future have to pay more and more for agricultural products, because the number of farmers in South Africa is becoming smaller and smaller and the small number of farmers will simply not be able to meet the food requirements of the people. As the representative of an urban constituency, the hon. member should also be concerned about the position of the farmer and about the effects this state of affairs may have on his own voters in his constituency. Let the hon. member go and read the speeches made by people like Dr. Van Biljoen, who is not a farmer but the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce on the Witwatersrand. What does Dr. Van Biljoen say? He is concerned about the fact that the decreasing number of farmers in South Africa will not be able to meet the future demand for food in South Africa. Commerce and industry would like the Government to save money and to do everything in its ability to lift the agricultural industry from its slump. Commerce and industry are concerned about the future of the agricultural industry. The hon. member for Langlaagte is probably not concerned about what will become of the agricultural industry.

Another matter of priority to which the hon. the Minister should have given attention is the question of marketing costs and of proper, orderly marketing in this country. Ways and means should be sought continually to facilitate the marketing of agricultural produce and to remove impediments. Unnecessary congestion. which has an adverse effect on the price of the producer, should be prevented. In this regard I just want to mention as an example what is happening here in Cape Town.

The Cape Town City Council is to blame for that.

No, the Cape Town City Council is not at all to blame. They built new abattoirs here. Until 12th July a quota system would be in operation as regards the marketing of slaughter stock, but everybody knew that Cape Town had built new abattoirs that would soon be put into operation. Only a few days before the new abattoirs were put into operation the quota system was suspended and farmers were asked to send their stock to the market. What happened? There was a tremendous congestion of stock here in Cape Town, with the result that slaughter stock stood here for 14 days and longer before they were slaughtered, which of course resulted in a tremendous loss in weight and a tremendous financial loss to the farmers.

Who asked them to send their cattle to the market?

I have already said that a quota system was in operation until more or less 12th July, and the farmers were then asked …

Who asked them?

The marketing agents.

Then why blame the Government?

Mr. Chairman, surely orderly marketing is the Minister’s responsibility. Where else did the quota system come from? Did those people simply do that of their own accord? The quota system, as I have said, was then suspended and at that stage, when they were switching to new abattoirs, the farmers were asked to send in their slaughter stock.

You do not know what you are talking about.

This question of the marketing of slaughter stock is only one example that could be mentioned. I therefore say that all possible steps should be taken to ensure orderly marketing of agricultural produce. Then there is another example I want to mention with regard to the list of priorities the Minister could have compiled for himself. Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time in our history that droughts have assumed such proportions. We know that this Government appointed a commission to advise it on the best way of feeding stock in times of drought. The South African Agricultural Union and other interested parties asked repeatedly that assistance should be rendered through the establishment of fodder banks in the country. But what is the policy of the Government? Is it the Government’s policy to see to it that there will be central fodder banks, or is it its policy to help the individual farmer to establish his own fodder bank on his farm? I should say that when there are such drought conditions in South Africa, this is a matter that should be high up on the Minister’s list of priorities. Two years ago Prof. Frikkie Tomlinson told us (I have the newspaper cutting before me): We have gained wonderful experience from the drought that has just passed. Only a few weeks ago I read in the newspaper that Prof. Tomlinson had said once again: “We have now learned a great deal from this drought.” We have learned a great deal, but we have become one the wiser. We want to ask the hon. the Minister what his policy is in respect of this problem. Why do we find that we have to go through one drought after another without proper planning to meet the drought conditions? We want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are not minimizing the assistance he has rendered to the farmers by means of subsidies and Railway rebates. That was wonderful assistance, but that was merely the same assistance as that rendered in the past; every year it is merely extended somewhat; it simply remains the old system. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that he gave us full details this afternoon with regard to the aid schemes introduced by the Department. It is a wonderful document, but I want to tell the Minister that many districts are being discriminated against. The assistance rendered to farmers by means of subsidies and fodder loans is set out on page three. In the first place it has to be an emergency drought-area; in the second place one first has to use the available loans, and it is only afterwards that one qualifies for the subsidy.

Do you want to give all farmers in South Africa a subsidy?

In most of the drought-stricken areas in the interior farmers are at present weighed down by the problem that they do not have adequate capital. The current drought in the Karoo has been in sway for the past year. There are some districts, for example Victoria West, where the fodder subsidy is given to farmers, but farmers in the very next district cannot get it. [Time limit.]

In the first place I want to agree with the hon. member for Newton Park where he sympathizes with the farmers in large parts of our country where an unprecedented drought is still prevailing. From time to time we have droughts in South Africa, but I think the present one is the most protracted one we have ever experienced. The hon. member is quite. Correct when he says that our farmers in those parts are experiencing tremendously difficult times, and all possible assistance is being granted to those farmers. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the Government has not only done everything in its power, but will continue to do everything in its power to combat these drought conditions for as far as it is possible and to alleviate the position of those farmers.

I hoped that we would conduct this debate on a level different from the one on which it had been conducted in the past. I hoped that we would conduct this debate in a more constructive manner. Mr. Chairman, the other day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said under the Prime Minister’s Vote that we should seek only the best for South Africa. I hope that in this debate, too, we shall seek only the best for the farmers of South Africa. What has the hon. member who has just resumed his seat suggested in his previous speeches and in the speech he has just made, in that spirit, in the interests of the farmers of South Africa? He came here with a number of reproaches in regard to things which had not been done and things which had in fact been done after the Opposition had been addressing warnings to the Government for a long time. But look at the way hon. members of the Opposition contradict one another. A few years ago the hon. member for Gardens made a fuss here because we had not made provision for a market for our surplus agricultural products. Now the hon. member for Newton Park suggests that the exact opposite is the case, i.e. that within a few years’ time South Africa will no longer be able to produce enough food. I am afraid that if the farmers of South Africa had listened to the pessimistic predictions about South Africa’s future and about the future of the farming population of South Africa, not a single farmer would probably have remained in the rural areas. The Opposition has never done or said anything to cause the farmers to have confidence in the future of agriculture. They are only making vague accusations against the Government. The hon. member told the Committee how long the United Party had been addressing warnings to the Government, both in this House and at congresses outside, in regard to the deterioration in agriculture, and how they pleaded that a commission should be appointed to go into these matters, but he neglected to mention that two commissions had in fact been appointed. Why did the hon. member not mention that two outstanding commissions had been appointed to investigate the position and the scope of agriculture and water affairs as a whole? Is surprises me that the Opposition did not ask the Prime Minister once again to dismiss the Ministers of Agriculture. They say that we on this side are only thanking the Ministers, but let us look for a moment at what they have done to help the farming community. One can summarize their speeches over the past few years in a few phrases: the rural areas are being depopulated; a commission has to be appointed to go into the matter; there is shortage of food or there is over-production of food. Mr. Chairman, we have other members on this side who will elaborate further on the credit position, and so forth; I just want to confine myself briefly to our marketing system. In the first place, let us look for points on which we agree. I accept that the Opposition agrees that the Agricultural Advisory Board of the Minister of Agriculture is made up of executive committee members of the agricultural unions. I accept that the Opposition accepts it as a starting-point for placing the agricultural industry on a sound footing. In other words, the Minister is advised by people who are dealing with the actual problems of agriculture. There can be no difference about that. I do not want to reproach the United Party in regard to what happened under the marketing system under its régime. What is the nature of the marketing system introduced by the National Party Government under the Marketing Act? In the first place marketing schemes are drafted by farmers themselves, with the aid of the Department. There are at present approximately 18 different boards and 19 or 20 different products which are controlled under them. The majority of the members on those boards are farmers, and they are the people who fix prices after taking production costs, and so forth, into account. The Minister can only fix produce prices in consultation with the marketing boards, and if agreement cannot be reached, there is no price. Not for a single moment can our present marketing system be compared with the system introduced by the United Party during its régime. We have developed a unique marketing system. Let us look for a moment at the meat marketing system as it has developed. We must realize that any control system involves costs and that somebody has to bear such costs. We are grateful to be able to say that the State bears the total cost of the control schemes under which the large majority of our agricultural products fall. If one looks at these Estimates, one will see that as far as the wheat industry alone is concerned, more than R19,000,000 was made available this year as a subsidy to help the consumer so that he may not have to pay too high a price for bread. [Time limit.]

I wish to reply to the hon. member for Christiana, who referred to the statement made by my hon. Leader when he said, “Ons soek net die beste vir Suid-Afrika”. I would like to tell the House that we are acting as a responsible Opposition. We are acting in such a way that we bring to the notice of this Government its shortcomings, and we present to the Government in this debate the problems which face agriculture. I submit that it is not up to us to find the solution.

Make a suggestion then.

We have made suggestions in the past, but they have not been accepted. But let me say that this Minister has at his disposal the resources and facilities to find solutions to these problems. I consider it is the duty of the Opposition to bring these matters to the notice of the Minister. I do not think these criticisms we put forward must be taken in the light of being un-South African. Further, dealing with the remarks made by the hon. member for Christiana, it is quite true that not many years ago we were pressing for a solution of the problem of over-production in South Africa, but to-day we are pressing for the solution of the problem of under-production. It is amazing how quickly in South Africa a surplus becomes a shortage, and invariably we find that the consumer, the housewife, blames the farmer. However, when we analyse these gluts and shortages we find that it is not the farmer who is the villain. [Interjection.] The farmer is merely a pawn in the hands of circumstances beyond his control. Almost invariably you find that the farmer has been caught up in a mesh of economic pressures which take away his freedom of action. We know that this country is subject to plant and stock diseases, and drought is never far away from the farmer. I want to quote from the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, where it says on page 75—

It refers to the widespread drought, and that is the point I want to argue. This drought is a factor in the reduced volume of production. However, I submit that the decisive factor was the relationship between the farmer’s costs of production and the price he received for his product. Here I think I must agree with hon. members on my left that in this case the Government must take the lion’s share of the blame, that their policy of price manipulation and their failure to take a long-term view in the fixing of selling prices has been at fault because it failed to take into account spiralling production costs.

Where does the Government manipulate prices?

I want to deal with the specific aspect of the fresh milk producer. I have received here a statement, a profit and loss account, which has been fully audited, of one of the largest fresh milk producers in Natal. This is a farmer who produces over 500 gallons of fresh milk a day. During 1965 he sold milk to the value of R55,891. He sold that milk at an average price of 30.68 cents per gallon. I think the Deputy Minister will agree that that is a fairly good price. [Interjections.] That, let me say, was after an increase in 1964 which brought the price of milk up to 31.25 cents per gallon, and a further increase in 1965 of 2.50 cents, which brought the maximum price up to 33.75 cents a gallon. However, this particular farmer sold over 182,500 gallons of milk at an average price of 30.68 cents per gallon. This brought him a gross income of R55,981. What were his production costs? On this enormous scale of milk production his production costs were R52,839, which works out at 29.01 cents per gallon. His net profit per gallon was 1.67 cents. This only goes to show what the production costs are, and those are the things this Government should take into consideration.

What does one farmer prove?

Let us get down to basic facts. [Interjections.]

Order!

Here is a man who produces 182,500 gallons of milk, 500 gallons a day, a big farmer, and he shows a net profit at the end of 12 months of R3,052.

What type of cows did he have?

His average was three gallons per cow. Let me say that going through his profit and loss account, I find that there is no item for interest, which means that he was fortunate enough not to have a loan, yet his income was only R3,052. If this had been a young farmer who had just started farming and had been required to take a loan, as so many farmers in this country to-day have to do, and assuming that his loan was R20,000—the investment in this property is well over R50,000—at 6 per cent it would have deducted R1,200 from his income and he would have been left with R1,800 as an annual income, which is accepted in many quarters as uneconomic.

What was his efficiency as a farmer?

I would like the Minister to visit this farm and let him see for himself what the efficiency of this farmer is. In fact, I invite him to do so. This shows a net return to the farmer of less than 6 per cent on the capital invested. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has proved to us now that he knows very little about farming and price determination. He has turned up here with the old story of one farmer, but he does not realize that the price of milk and many of the other commodities is based on the average production cost plus. Consequently we cannot pay any heed to those figures with which the hon. member furnished us. The shortages and surplusses are now being attributed to the Government’s action, and the drought has nothing to do with it, they say. Even in regard to milk, if there should be general rains there would, with the prices which are at present obtaining, once again be surpluses. However, it is not so much the price which has made for shortages or surpluses but the drought.

I want to return to the hon. member for Newton Park. He said we are all concerned about the drought. We also regret it that there should be a drought. He also said that they were now allergic to our praising the Minister and that we should not do so any more, but to-night I again want to thank the Government and in particular the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing for the actions which have been taken during this drought. If we look at the Estimates we see how the Government has in recent years spent much more money in order to accommodate the farmers in the drought-stricken areas than they have in the past because the drought is so much severer. Now hon. members speak so readily of a fodder bank; had there been a fodder bank there would have been no difficulty in the country and there would have been no shortages. But have the hon. members ever tried to find out what it would cost to establish fodder banks and to let the fodder lie there for years on end?

Have you ever asked what the drought cost?

When drought occurs the Government sees to it that no fodder is exported from the country and the Government even makes use of fodder which is normally not used in fodder mixtures, and then the Government still subsidizes those products so that they can be used in the fodder mixtures. When we see that R15,000,000 more is being given this year, and that most of that money is going for subsidies in the dry areas in order to accommodate the farmers there, and when we see that the Government is for example paying a subsidy of over 70c per bag on yellow mealies alone, so that the cattle farmers can obtain the mealies at a very cheap price, then we realize what assistance the Government is rendering. The subsidy is so high that one even finds that the farmer takes the mealies which he has produced and sells it and then buys mealies again to feed his cattle with. So high is the subsidy that it even pays the farmer to pay transport to get the mealies to the agent and back again to his farm. It still pays him to sell the mealies.

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

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned I had just pointed out that fodder banks were an unpracticable proposition and that the Government, with the subsidies which it is giving for the transportation of cattle and for the purchase of fodder in order to transport them to the drought-stricken areas, will in this way be able to render much more practical assistance than with the fodder bank system. The hon. member for Newton Park has said that he admitted that this drought is worse than any previous drought, but then he went on to accuse the Government of having taken insufficiently positive action in respect of assistance to the farmers. Inter alia he said that the Government was merely talking about land prices being too high. Mr. Chairman, in recent times exhorbitantly high prices have in actual fact been paid for land in some cases, and they will admit that. The result is that a farmer has to obtain a higher income from his land in order to be able to redeem his interest. If the land prices had not soared so high our farmers would have been able to purchase their land at lower prices and then they would not have found it so difficult to survive. They are saying that the Government cannot guarantee the prices of products. Mr. Chairman, no government, neither the previous Government nor this Government nor any future Government can guarantee prices. So many circumstances make it impossible for one to guarantee prices because, as they have said, there is a surplus the one year and a shortage the next. How is it possible then to guarantee prices? When there are surplusses the price of products can only be determined by the price which one can obtain at home and which the consumer will be willing to pay, and the price which one is able to obtain for export products determines what the domestic price can be. No government can guarantee prices if there is a tremendous decrease in the overseas price and there are many surplusses at home which have to be exported at that low price. In addition the Government is being accused of the hon. the Minister having already said that there are farms which are too small. Mr. Chairman, there are farms which are too small, uneconomic farms on which, no matter how hard it has rained and no matter how hard the farmer has prayed, he cannot make a decent living on that small piece of land. That is also the reason for the Government having introduced this new system of consolidating those small pieces of land so that a farmer can obtain a reasonably sized farm to farm on, and so that when he has good years his income will be such that it would be easier for him to tide himself over a lean year. But when a farm is so small that a farmer is only able to live from hand to mouth, he must, after even a minor drought or at the slightest set-back, ask the Government for assistance. I think that is very unsound. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, if hon. members opposite want to fight amongst themselves they can go and do so outside, not here. I cannot hear myself speaking. Hon. members opposite are saying that the Government has also increased railage costs. They admit that even the Railways has to be run on a business basis. But even now that the railage costs have been increased the fact remains that the Government has, all these years and not only in times of drought, accommodated the producer by means of railage rebates. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Christiana has taken it amiss of the hon. member for Newton Park for not having mentioned the commissions which have been appointed by the Government. He himself mentioned the two commissions, the one which is instituting an investigation into the condition of farmers and the other one in connection with water affairs. The hon. member did not, it is true, mention the one in regard to water affairs because that is not being discussed here, and he did mention the other one. I should just like to have that placed on record. The hon. member also added that it was forced upon the Government by the Nationalist farmers of the Transvaal. The hon. member also said here that we on this side of the House are merely making the same speeches each year. Mr. Chairman, the hon. members on that side are merely making the same replies each year, for the difficulties which the farmers are experiencing and which trouble them remain the same each year, if anything, they are getting worse. Each year therefore, we are compelled to mention those difficulties. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Ladybrand has said here that prices are fixed at the average production cost plus, and I take it he means plus an entrepreneur’s wage. That is what we on this side of the House are pleading for. That is what we on this side have been pleading for all these years and then hon. members ask, particularly the hon. member for Christiana, where we see it in the Marketing Act? [Interjections.] I heard it from the hon. member for Ladybrand. Apparently the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He stated emphatically here the average production cost plus an entrepreneur’s wage.

One cannot guarantee every farmer’s production costs.

The hon. member said the average costs plus, and according to our policy that is what we want. Mr. Chairman, agriculture plays a tremendous role in the economy of our country because, under normal circumstances, a very great part of our agricultural produce is exported; we therefore obtain a great part of our currency in this country from agricultural produce which is exported. It helps to build up South Africa. [Interjection.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. member wants to know what I, the member for Gardens, farms with? I invite him to my farm and I shall show him what I farm with and I shall also show him how I farm. Mr. Chairman, it is estimated that we are collecting approximately R250,000,000 to use as foreign payments in order to expand our industries, etc.

Is that what was earned with the export of agricultural products?

Yes, this year it is of course a little less, but I said under normal circumstances. Of course we are also producing other products which we manufacture here internally and which builds up our production. The farmers create markets for materials which are manufactured here, and in this way agriculture plays a tremendously great role and of course also provides food for our nation. Mr. Chairman, one cannot then understand why the farmers and agriculture in general is being so badly neglected in this country.

The hon. member for South Coast does not seem to me to be neglected.

He is such an excellent farmer. Hon. members cannot get him down even if they wanted to. Mr. Chairman, each year we draw attention to the position of the farmer in this country, and we have already spoken so often about the depopulation of the rural areas. Yet I think the tempo will increase this year. I think the depopulation will be greater this year than it has been in the past few years. I see that Mr. Theo Gerdener, the Administrator of Natal, is also now …

What farms which have been depopulated are now in disuse?

If the hon. member were to go and have a look in the Transvaal and such places, he would find farms which are now in disuse and to which many of those farmers will not return. [Interjection.] I am not stating now that those farms will always remain in disuse.

Is that the fault of the Government?

To a certain extent it is the Government’s fault that those farmers cannot make a living.

Is the hon. member opposed to large-scale land-ownership?

No, I am not opposed to large-scale land-ownership. I never said that. I have nothing against the man who is able to own a lot of land, and reasonably good land. Mr. Chairman, the points which were made here were just being made in order to attribute everything to the drought. In other words, they are hiding behind that drought. The farmers’ position is not of recent origin, farmers have been leaving our rural areas for years already. For a considerable time now farmers have been going downhill and have not been able to get any further than what they were. Mention has already been made here of increased cost of production. I do not want to mention figures, it is not necessary; but the figures are undoubtedly increasing. It is also true that the prices of products have gone up. The figures for the period 1948 to 1956, a period of 17 years, indicate that the prices of farming requirements have increased by 68 points while the prices of products have increased by 69 points. In other words, the prices of products have more or less kept pace with the costs of products, but the hon. member for Waterberg thinks that everything is going well now. He has forgotten that the cost of living has gone up tremendously in that period. The cost of living has increased tremendously and how must the farmer who in those days had an income of a R1,000—and the income of 40 per cent of the farmers was R1,000 per year—and who is at present still earning a R1,000 per year, how must he make a living under the increased cost of living?

That is merely our farmers’ pocket money.

The hon. member for Colesberg and a few other hon. members earn a lot more, but according to the report of the Commissioner of Revenue the income of 40 per cent of our farmers was R1,000. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, it may be the hon. member’s pocket money but it is not the pocket money of 40 per cent of our farmers, and those are the people who are suffering hardships, those are the people for whom we on this side of the House are pleading and saying that the Government should take care of.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard of the temporary loans which are being granted. We appreciate that. In most cases they are nothing new, most of them have been established for a long time already, most of them were there in the time of the previous Government and it is only a few which have perhaps been added now. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to return to what the hon. member for Newton Park said. He has made so many contentions to-night that each one of us has up to now been able to return to his contentions and there are still some left over for me to deal with. The hon. member contended that the warnings issued to the Government by the United Party, the Institute of Trade and Industries and the South African Agricultural Union have fallen on deaf ears and that we have always merely put aside and ignored their difficulties. I must say that it is a long time since I last heard such a weak argument from a man who rose and maintained that he was pleading in the interests of the farmer, but who did absolutely nothing else but see whether he could not exploit the drought conditions. I just want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that although these things have already been mentioned I am also going to mention them and add that when the farmers complain and when the United Party, the Institute of Trade and Industries, and the Transvaal Agricultural Union give us advice, then we ask whether our farmers are not perhaps living a little too well, whether there is not any poor managerial ability and whether there are not any uneconomic units as well? As far as these three matters are concerned, I just want to say that if one were to attend a farmers’ meeting and discuss their problems with them one would see that those farmers, who know what they are talking about, would also put it to us as members of the House of Assembly that we should in fact consider our living standard a little and see whether we cannot economize there. The farmers themselves advocate our going into the matter in order to see what the managerial ability of every farmer is in order to determine what farmers do not possess the necessary managerial ability. There are farmers who feel that those other farmers must ultimately, after continual assistance, be helped in one way or another towards doing something else so that those who do in fact have good managerial ability can remain on the farms and be assisted to the best of the Government’s ability. One finds proof of the existence of uneconomic units if one goes into the many hundreds of applications for consolidation. If the farmer is himself asking for expansion, then surely that implies in other words that his land, to his own way of thinking, is uneconomic and that is why the farmer is asking that this or that farm be added to his unit. All members of Parliament, hon. members on that side as well, as far as they represent the farmers, are having to deal with this problem day after day. The same hon. member also said that the number of farmers will be diminished to such an extent that they will no longer be able to meet the nation’s requirements in regard to the necessary foodstuffs, but even if we were able to double the number of farmers which there are at the moment ten times over, we still have to remember that we cannot increase the tillable agricultural land. We can place a great many farmers, more than there are at present, but if we cannot increase our tillable land, the position will remain as it is at present and may even deteriorate. The same hon. member said that the Government is discriminating and that it is only granting subsidies and rebates to farmers in the proclaimed drought areas. I shall return to that later.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I just want to refer in passing to the hon. member, for Gardens, who attacked, me—I was seated here in my bench—while he was making his speech. What happened is this: I glared silently at the hon. member when he, too, took advantage of the drought conditions and at that moment the hon. member for Winburg, who has his seat here next to mine, threw in an interjection, whereupon the hon. member for Gardens pounced upon me. Nevertheless, it is no more than right, because what actually happened is that I gave the glare the hon. member for Winburg should have given and he said what I should have said because we agree that the hon. member for Gardens was taking advantage of the drought conditions.

Sir, you know that whether or not the farmer is sharing in the economic prosperity of the country, is a tantalizing question. If somebody says yes, I shall contradict him. If he says no, I shall also contradict him. The fact of the matter is that in certain areas things are going very well with the farmers: in others they are making their normal living; and in respect of many other regions, they are having a tremendous struggle. This variety of conditions makes it extremely difficult for the Government to apply in a practical and completely successful way effectively adapted assistance schemes in the various regions. Surely that is as clear as daylight. The United Party is saying that we simply must increase the price of products. That is a very cheap and a very popular assertion to make. One easily draws applause when one says that. I can also do it, but it is a very irresponsible thing to do. We have at our disposal authoritative statistics from which it is very evident that production means have not increased disproportionately to the increase in the prices of products. One would say that that should point to a stable income for the farmer. However, the Government knows that that is not so. I would like to mention a few cases.

Order! The hon. member may not read his speech.

Sir, I have to accent that I was reading it, because I respect the Chair, but I was in fact reading my speech to-night to a lesser extent than I have ever done before.

On a point of order, nobody can read that fast.

In the first instance I want to say that as a result of the drought the volume of production in the stricken areas has in large parts of the country decreased by 40 per cent to 50 per cent. That was a decrease in income. In addition to that hon. members must also take into account that three factors have contributed to increasing the costs. Now the hon. Chairman is watching me closely to see whether or not I am reading. The income of the farmer decreased in spite of the increased use of production means which brought with it an increase in expenditure. It increased in spite of greater surface areas under cultivation and in spite of increased mechanization, both things which make for increased expenditure.

On a point of order, may the hon. member stand in a Minister’s bench when he is speaking?

Rather from the bench of a Deputy Minister than that of a Progressive member.

Order! The hon. member may not talk from the Deputy Minister’s seat.

Up to now I have been dealing with the stock farmer. The grain farmer also has his problems. In the North-Western Transvaal the drought has lasted for five to six years, after two years of foot-and-mouth disease. But if the Government had not been aware of these difficulties which the farmers are experiencing. I would not to-night have been able to tell hon. members on the opposite side that R40,500,000 has been paid out in subsidies and rebates in the last four years alone. If we had not discriminated and if the Government had paid subsidies to all farmers, as that hon. member has so irresponsibly suggested, then this amount would have been increased tenfold. Other irrecoverable Government expenditure which has been incurred in order to place agriculture on a firm foundation has amounted to R219,000,000 in the past few years. Subsidies in respect of food, i.e. in respect of bread, butter and mealies, have over the past 17 years totalled R499,250,000. This is now the Government that is simply asking the farmers. “Are you not living too high? Are your plots not uneconomic?”, and then just sits back, as that hon. member tried to explain to us.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Waterberg will forgive me if I do not follow him in the somewhat lighthearted manner in which he dealt with the problems of agriculture while progressing from one seat to another on the other side of the House. I want to come back to what was said by the hon. member who preceded him on that side, namely the hon. member for Ladybrand. If I understood him correctly, he said that in times of drought the Government prevented the export of feeds. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite wrong. I quote from Merino, a periodical of July, 1966. headed: “Uitvoer van lusern.” It says—

Mr. Chairman, so much for the hon. member for Ladybrand's contention that in times of drought the Government does not permit the export of stock feed.

Last year the hon. member and I were in agreement on one point, namely when we raised the question of the growing tendency towards monopolies in certain sectors of our food industry, particularly in the milling industry in so far as it had to do with the licensing of bakeries by the Wheat Board. Last year the Minister promised to have this matter investigated by the Marketing Council. That Council did investigate the matter and they reported. From their report it appears that on the Rand there are two milling groups controlling 18 bakeries which are responsible for no less than 77 per cent of the total bread supply. Monopolies in themselves are not necessarily bad, but I think it is indicative of the control that has to be exercised over them that in a country like the United States, the inhabitants of which are pre-eminent believers in the principle of free enterprise, monopolies cartels and trusts are kept under very close surveillance indeed. It further appeared from that report that in Pretoria there were two groups containing five bakeries, controlling 92 per cent of the bread supply. In Durban there were two groups containing four bakeries with 91 per cent of the bread supply. In Cape Town there were three groups with six bakeries controlling 79 per cent of the bread supply. Bakeries that wish to expand have to buy reserve capacity from the Association of Master Bakers at R20 a square foot. The result, to use the words of the report, is an artificial raising of the cost structure. Since the report was drafted, the Wheat Board has decided to be more lenient in connection with the registration of confectioners who sell only on their own premises directly to consumers. But I should like to ask the hon. the Minister tonight: What is the position of the other bakeries who actually deliver bread to their customers? Is there going to be a relaxation in the granting of licences in such cases as well? I hope the Minister will make a detailed statement in this regard.

This concentration of power in the hands of certain milling groups is still continuing. The latest example appeared in a report in the Eastern Province Herald in August this year, in connection with Jabula Foods. I understand that this is a group mainly interested in the manufacture of powder for Bantu beer. The report reads as follows—

I have no doubt that Mr. Weston, since he came to this country and established his holding company, Meulbeheringsmaatskappy, has brought a great deal of foreign exchange into the country. I think, however, that this continued concentration of power in the milling industry in the hands of a few individuals is a matter for concern. Such a milling firm, whether it is licensed by the Wheat Board or by the Maize Board, not only mills grain for human consumption. Maize millers are also large manufacturers of animal feed stuffs and balanced rations. The standard of efficiency and degree of monopoly control of such millers can affect the cost of living firstly directly through the price of human foodstuffs …

Order! Hon. members must not stand in the passage and converse.

Secondly, they can control it indirectly through the price of animal feeds. The price of animal feeds is important already in the cost structure of many sections of the agricultural industry which are intensive. One might mention first of all the pig industry, i.e. the production of bacon and pork. Secondly there is the poultry industry, i.e. the production of eggs and, in particular, a new development, namely the highly intensive broiler chicken production. Then there is also the dairy industry, i.e. the production of milk, butter and cheese. I think it is becoming generally accepted that for any large-scale extension of our beef supplies in this country, we have to look to intensified production. Except in the case of those farmers who are able to mill their own grain, it is obvious that there must be a greater reliance on feeds such as mealie meal and maize germ meal, which is produced by the millers. I hope that the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, are watching these developments very carefully. I think we must take warning from what has happened in other countries in various sectors of the food industry. We may, for example, take a warning from what happened in the United States in the meat industry. There approximately ten chain store groups retail 70 per cent of all the meat, which they in turn obtain from 3.000 packing houses, which in turn get their supplies from approximately 2.000,000 producers. With their tremendous buying power, these chain store groups, controlling as they do 70 per cent of the retail trade, have achieved bargaining power in both ways, namely in buying and in selling. I do not want to say any more on that point now, as we will presumably at some later stage have an opportunity of discussing this question of meat more fully and in this particular instance when a Bill is introduced to control abattoirs.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to another instance, which may be an isolated one, where a very unhealthy situation exists in one of the distributive trades. Obviously inefficiency in the distribution of foodstuffs must lead to higher prices for the consumer or to lower consumption, or both. I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to a report appearing in the Eastern Province Herald of the 21st of this month, where the Port Elizabeth Medical Officer of Health said—

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the plea that was made by the last speaker on monopolies in the food industries. As far as the millers and so forth are concerned, I should like to point out, however. that the prices of their products are controlled as well. It would have been a very great danger if their prices had not been controlled.

I want to deal with a point raised by the hon. member for Gardens and by the hon. member for Newton Park, namely the great number of farms which are unoccupied at present. You will remember. Sir, that it was an election cry of the United Party that the rural areas were allegedly becoming Black. They have quoted astronomical figures of the great number of Bantu who are supposed to be streaming into the rural areas now. The hon. Leader of the Opposition amongst others said that there were now approximately 1,300.000 more Bantu in the rural areas than previously.

I have the figures here in connection with farm labour as revealed by the agricultural census. There are to-day fewer Bantu labourers on the farms as compared with the number of Bantu labourers on the White farms in 1952. The story that the rural areas are becoming depopulated of Whites and are becoming Back is, therefore, really unfounded. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has Quoted an astronomical figure of more than 1,000.000 as regards the number of Bantu in the rural areas, but he has used the census statistics and he has not borne in mind the fact that this figure included not only the increase in the number of Bantu in the White rural areas, but the number of Bantu in the Bantu areas as well. Those census statistics do not differentiate between the White rural areas and the Bantu rural areas. They included all the inhabitants of the rural areas. He added all those figures and then arrived at that astronomical figure. If he had looked at the figures of the agricultural census, however, he would have noticed that there were fewer Bantu left on the farms to-day after efflux control had been applied. This is indeed a great problem at present because there is a shortage of Bantu labour on the farms in many parts of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to make a minor contribution in connection with the problems experienced by our farming industry. This is, of course, the only industry which is exposed to a risk factor no other industry is exposed to, viz. the climatic conditions. One simply cannot get away from the fact that we have a drought in some part or other of South Africa every year. If we do not have a drought in the north-west we have one in the Northern Transvaal. If it is not in the Northern Transvaal, it is in the Southern Free State; if it is not in the Southern Free State, it may be in the border districts, but there is always some part or other of South Africa which suffers from a drought every year.

Drought is not, therefore, a problem we have to face periodically; we have a drought in some part or other of the country every year, but this year’s drought is simply on a much larger scale than it was in previous years. But I want to mention another factor which to my mind is also of importance in the farming industry and which makes matters difficult for the farming industry. In the first place, we have to cope with something in the farming industry which I want to call a controlled economy. The prices of all products of the farming industry are fixed in terms of the Marketing Act through its systems of control boards, but as far as the other sectors of our economy are concerned, prices are not fixed at all. Consequently, we have on the one hand a free economy in the case of all other industries, while in the case of the farming industry we have a controlled economy; this situation creates certain disproportions with which the farming industry has to cope. Firstly, we find that the increase in the prices of farm produce is not the same as the increase in the prices of commodities in the other sectors of the economy where we have to do with a free economy; this situation causes certain bottlenecks. I now come to another factor, namely that as far as the farming industry is concerned we have an unprotected industry whereas in the case of many other industries we have protected industries. In this connection I want to mention the artificial fertilizer industry in particular. Because we wanted to stabilize this industry in South Africa we protected it, but it was actually protected at the expense of the consumer of the artificial fertilizer, namely the farming industry. In other words, the secondary industries in South Africa, for example the factories manufacturing spare parts for implements, and artificial fertilizers and so forth, are actually protected at the expense of the primary producer, and this once again causes bottle-necks in the farming industry. If we can solve these two matters I think we will have gone a long way to find a solution for the problems of the farming industry.

I want to ask that there should be much closer co-ordination between the Department of Commerce and Industries and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. I think the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing should have much more say when the prices of artificial fertilizers. for example, are fixed. The profit of the artificial fertilizer factories is calculated on their capital investment; they are allowed a profit margin of 13 per cent on their capital investment. After certain taxes have been deducted the net profit amounts to approximately 9 per cent. I just want to say that if the farming industry could make a profit of 9 per cent on its capital, it would be the most flourishing industry in South Africa. As a matter of fact, the farming industry makes a profit of not even 2 per cent on its capital investment. I think there could be a certain measure of co-ordination between the Departments in this connection. It was indeed necessary for us to protect our artificial fertilizer industry so that it could be stabilized and nobody is opposed to such a policy. But now that the artificial fertilizer industry has been stabilized— and nobody can deny that—I think that industry should be satisfied with a smaller profit margin in order that the farmers may pay less for artificial fertilizers.

The majority of the artificial fertilizers used in the country to-day, with the exception of potash, is manufactured in South Africa by, for instance, Sasol, and it is sold to the artificial fertilizer company for the same price at which it can be imported. It is quite unnecessary for the artificial fertilizer industry to make these enormous profits it is making on artificial fertilizers to-day. It is, for instance, absolutely unnecessary for the artificial fertilizer industry to send out such a large number of commercial travellers to sell artificial fertilizers to the farms because those farmers know which artificial fertilizers they need; they order it from their nearest co-operative society and there is no need for travelling agents to visit the farmers on their farms; but this is one item for which provision is made in the cost accounting of the artificial fertilizer factories. [Time limit.]

Before raising a few points of serious importance to the agricultural industry in South Africa, I first want to object to the insinuations the hon. member for Heilbron made a moment ago against the Administrator of Natal, who was appointed by the Nationalist Party Government and who on 25th April of this year said exactly the opposite of what the hon. member has said in connection with the depopulation of the rural areas. I have here the report of the Burger of 25th April of this year. The heading reads: “Too many whites moving to cities”.

Where do you farm?

The Administrator of Natal, appointed by the Nationalist Party Government, said on that occasion (translation)—

The Administrator then went on to prove how serious the problem of the depopulation of the rural areas was, but the hon. member for Heilbron said to-night that it was not as serious as hon. members on this side of the House wanted to make out. Now the hon. member wants to make out that the problem is a serious one, but he was contradicted by a member of his own Party, the Administrator of my province, on 25th April of this year. I object to a member of this House contradicting the Administrator of Natal. But, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Heilbron made a very important confession here, a confession we seldom hear from that side of the House, namely that the agricultural industry was making an average profit of only 2 per cent on the industry’s capital investment, while the artificial fertilizer industry was making a net profit of 9 per cent. Sir, for how many years have we on this side of the House not pleaded that the profit the farmer was allowed to make was an unjust, unreasonable and unfair profit, compared with the profit accepted by every other industry in South Africa as a reasonable profit? Year after year we have pleaded here that the same recognition should be given to the agriculture as that enjoyed by the secondary industries in South Africa. Year after year we have pointed out that the Government policy is placing the agricultural industry in an inferior position as compared with the secondary industries of this country. To-night the hon. member for Heilbron has admitted that. But he did not make any plea in the interest of the farmer or in the interest of agriculture. He only mentioned that as a reason why the profit on artificial fertilizers should be reduced. He did not mention it as a reason why the profit of the farmer should be increased; he did not mention it as a reason why the Government policy should be changed. No, he only mentioned it as a reason why the profit of the manufacturer of artificial fertilizers should be reduced.

If the farmer has to accept a profit of 2 per cent on his capital investment, does that hon. member want all industries in the country to be prepared to make a profit of only 2 per cent on their capital? Does he want to see the whole industrial development of South Africa come to a standstill because he believes that a profit of 2 per cent is a fair profit on one’s investment? Because if that is not so then the hon. member must now get up in this House and say that the farmers of South Africa are not treated fairly in terms of the policy of the fixing of prices of his Government, which allows the farmer a profit of 2 per cent on his capital investment.

There are a few other points I should like to raise in the short time at my disposal. I do not expect to get much sympathy from the one and a half Ministers, the one Minister who is an active farmer of the Bredasdorp-Caledon district, but whose constituency is now being represented here by the hon. the Minister of Sport, and the Deputy Minister, who has sold his family farm because his interests are now to be found in the Pongola business concessions. I cannot expect these Ministers to have sympathy with the farmers who are struggling to-day to make a living while they are representing urban or business interests. The first point I want to make is the following: I want to suggest that this Government has no regard for the place organized agriculture and the co-operative movement should have in the agriculture in South Africa. This Government is disregarding it because the Government does not have the courage to recognize the rightful place organized agriculture, the S.A. Agricultural Union and its ramifications and the co-operative movement ought to take in formulating the agricultural policy in South Africa. There are two methods through which this could be done—either by means of compulsory membership, something I do not advocate to-night, but which is the ideal solution: this Government will never accept it and the S.A. Agricultural Union does not accept it either because it believes its motives will be misunderstood, or by means of the compulsory registration of farmers.

May I just ask the hon. member of which farmers’ association he is a member.

I was secretary of the Pretoria District Union, secretary of the North-Eastern Districts Agricultural Association, secretary of the Transvaal Agricultural Union and Peanut Committee as well as an alternative member of the head committee of the Transvaal Agricultural Union. In turn I want to ask that hon. member who has put the question to me which agricultural union he has ever represented? I want to suggest that the Government give serious attention to the compulsory registration of farmers so that we would at least have a basis to see with which people we are dealing and to find out what their problems are.

There is also a second point I want to deal with briefly, and that is the fact that during all these years the Government has not made any progress at all as far as solving the problem of the marketing of fresh products (vars-produkte) is concerned.

Pig (vark) products?

No, the pig (vark) products I leave to the hon. the Minister; I think he knows more about that than I do. I am talking about fresh vegetables and fresh fruit. Mr. Chairman, we have one commission after the other through these years to carry out investigations in this connection. The Minister ought to be aware of the problems arising out of the marketing of fresh products. This Government has now been in power for 18 years and they still have not been able to find a solution to this problem which basically means that the farmer will not receive a stable price until such time as provision has been made for cooling facilities. The farmer sends his fresh products to the market to-day and if those products are not sold within three or four days they perish and have to be thrown away, and while this state of affairs continues the farmer will not get a stable price for his fresh products. He will not get a stable price unless those products can be kept in a stores cold-storage and unless a fair balance can be maintained between daily demand and supply. As long as one has the state of affairs where the middleman is in a position to manipulate the market—the farmer will, of course, try to obtain on the market the highest price he possibly can—and as long as one has no means of protecting perishable products from rotting one will find that the prices of fresh products will reach high and low points.

The hon. member who has just spoken, the one and a half member for Durban (Point), has theorized here on matters about which he probably does not know very much, matters which are enjoying the attention of people who know considerably more about the matter than he does. I am surprised that organized agriculture has not found itself in such a critical position sooner: I did not know that the hon. member was an alternative member of a provincial agricultural organization!

I want to return to the way in which hon. members of the Opposition are approaching the entire agricultural problem in debates in this House. I want to warn against what the Opposition is doing, which is to allow too much emphasis to fall on the so-called critical condition of the farming industry in South Africa. They want to give out that things are going extremely badly with the farmer in South Africa. I want to warn them that they are causing a great deal of damage to the agricultural industry by their continually negative actions and by continually emphasizing only the bad things in the farming industry. It is correct that droughts occur from time to time and that droughts are practically always being experienced in some part or other of our country. It is also correct that most of the time there is some or other group of farmers who are suffering hardships, but we must guard against exaggerating these conditions and against letting the emphasis fall on the bad things only. By doing so we are creating a wrong impression on the public outside, who stand outside the farming industry and we are actually losing the sympathy and the cooperation of those people whom we need and whom we are seeking by continually describing the farming industry as an inferior, struggling industry. That, instead of the opposite, which they would perhaps very much like to do, is what hon. members of the Opposition are achieving; they are doing the farming industry a great deal of harm with this sort of conduct. In reality the picture is quite different from the one which implies that the farming industry is continually suffering hardships and that the industry is going to rack and ruin. Yet the real picture is quite different. If we look at the contribution which this industry makes to the net national product, we find that the farming industry is a tremendously great asset to South Africa; we find that the farming industry, as a result of its share in the building up and the consolidation of the national character, is a tremendous asset for South Africa and is doing a tremendous amount which cannot even be calculated. If we consider the standard of living of the farmer himself, then it belies the assertion that things are going so terribly badly with the farmer. We must all contribute towards creating an atmosphere in which we will enjoy the co-operation of all sections of the population, as well as sympathy for farming industry.

There are problems, Mr. Chairman, but it is quite wrong to maintain, as hon. members of the Opposition did again this evening, that the only solution to the problems of the farming industry is higher prices for products. Surely that is not the case at all. One can do the farming industry more harm than good by continually making propaganda for higher prices and higher profits. But there is another matter to which particular attention must be paid, and that is the question of land prices. It would not help to be increasing continually the prices of products in order to adjust them to rising land prices, because that would only have a spiralling effect. I just want to point out that we find in the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing that during the past 16 years the index figure of producer prices has increased by 66 points. The index figure stood at 164 in 1964-5, as against 98 in 1948-9. With the considerable increase in producer prices during the past season, this picture is much rosier. But let us look at the price index for farming requirements. In 1948-9 the index figure stood at 99, while in 1964-5 it stood at 161. In other words, producer prices had increased more than the prices of farming requirements over the same period of time. But let us have a look at the increase in land prices over the same period. Where the prices of farming requirements increased by 61 points, and producer prices by 66 points, we find that land prices in the same period, in the mealie regions for example, had increased by as much as 208 points. Where the index figure stood at 100 in 1948-9, it stood at 308 in 1963-4. In some cases the increase was 274 and in others it was 275. In the wheat growing areas land prices increased by as much as 143 points, in other words 143 per cent. In the cattle grazing regions land prices increased by 296 per cent and in the sheep grazing areas by 265 per cent. If we take this into consideration then it is clear that land prices have risen phenomenally and out of all proportion, and coupled with that, the prices of lease land have increased to practically the same extent. Why? The reply to this we find in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into White Occupation of Rural Areas, in paragraph 506. There we find that, where, in 1927, 3.3 per cent of the farmers possessed 29.9 per cent of the total agricultural land, 3.1 per cent of the farmers possess more than 32 per cent, or 30,000,000 morgen, of the Republic’s agricultural land, in 1954. [Time limit.]

Since we are dealing in this debate with a sector of the economy that had a gross income of R980,000,000 last year, I think the time has come to appreciate how essential the agricultural industry is to the economy of South Africa, and we should decide whether it is worth the trouble to do everything in our ability to place the agricultural industry on a sound basis once again, and whether we should simply let this industry take its course, whilst knowing that the further depopulation of the rural areas will continue.

The hon. member for Winburg, who has just sat down, said that the United Party was always emphasizing the difficulties of agriculture. I want to submit that that is not all that the United Party does. Matters are not going well with agriculture. If the hon. member for Winburg claims that matters are going well with agriculture, then I should like to hear from him on what grounds he makes such a statement. Matters are not going well with the agricultural industry, and I am quite prepared to admit that the drought has had a great deal to do with that, but it is no use saying, as the hon. member for Ladybrand has said, that this Party blames the Government if there are surpluses and also blames the Government if there are shortages. The Government should know what to do if there are surpluses and it should know what to do if there are shortages. The hon. member for Winburg says that this so-called agitation on the part of the United Party if matters are not going well with agriculture, gives the consumer the impression that agriculture merely wants more and more all the time. Before dealing with the allegation that we are merely asking more and more all the time, I just want to mention something that has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Point), and that is the following: Apart from housing, one needs four cardinal, essential things in order to exist, and those are bread, meat, dairy products and vegetables. Those are the cardinal requirements of every person. I put it to you that in the case of two of those products there are fixed prices and the consumer knows where he is, but in the case of the other two there are no fixed prices. Mr. Chairman, this evening I had dinner with some guests, and a lady told me that this morning she had paid 10 cents a pound for potatoes, and 25 cents for a head of cabbage, and 25 cents for a head of lettuce. I challenge anybody to go to the local public market and then deny that a profit of 300 per cent, 400 per cent and 500 per cent is being made on perishable products. Has the time not come to design a method whereby the profit margins on meat and vegetables can be restricted to such an extent that this tremendous exploitation can no longer occur, and so that there will no longer be thousands and tens of thousands of registered sellers smuggling these products? Until such time as a method can be designed, the public outside will have to continue paying such high prices for perishable products. I do not want to stop on this any longer.

It has been alleged—and I think also by the hon. member for Winburg—that we are merely asking for higher produce prices all the time. There are only two ways to set these things right. If the hon. member for Heilbron is correct in saying—and we have been saying that for a long time—that the profit margin of the producers on an investment of almost R5,000,000,000 is only 2½ per cent, then surely there is something radically wrong. Then there is surely something cardinally wrong in the country.

Where did you get those figures?

From last year’s Hansard. If that is the profit margin on the farmer’s investment—and to obtain that he has engaged in an industry that carries the utmost risk as a result of the periodic droughts —then surely it is also correct to say that he should get the best dividend but, on the contrary, he gets the worst. How can the matter be corrected? We cannot simply go on increasing the prices. Surely that stands to reason. One should maintain the balance as far as foreign prices are concerned. One cannot step up the prices until they are quite disproportionate, because what would one then do if there were surpluses later? Then one would have to sell on the foreign market, and the prices would be quite disproportionate. [Interjection.] That hon. member has had a turn to speak, and he can get another turn. Until such time as this Government decides, as far as the production costs of the farmer are concerned. that it should devise ways and means to reduce those production costs, we shall achieve nothing. It appears to me as though the Government has decided that the prices of the tractors and the ploughs and the dieseline and the tyres and the spare-parts and the lorries and the fencing and the cement and the packaging and the pump installations and the bags should simply remain the same, and it is time the Government realized that concessions have to be made as regards the customs duties on these articles, because the farmer’s dividends on his capital investment are minimal. In my view the Government should resolve to employ both means, firstly to increase prices as much as possible, and secondly to try to reduce production as much as possible. Until that is done, agriculture will be an unprofitable industry in this country, and people will leave the land. The hon. member for Winburg said that farming was also a factor in the national character; that it was something that imprinted its stamp on the people’s character. We have been saying that all these years, but we cannot merely work for the national character. The man who is farming should also receive a decent dividend on his investment. He cannot farm merely for sentiment’s sake. Sentiment plays a large role in agriculture. The man is attached to his land, to his heritage, and he does not want to leave it, but he becomes impoverished on it. It is not fair that the section of the population practising this industry should endure such suffering.

I want to come back to the position of our stock in the drought that has now virtually brought this country to its knees. I want to tell the Minister that I know what his attitude is, because he has stated it repeatedly. His attitude, as it is published here, is that when the circumstances allow it. the production, purchasing and storing of fodder in any conceivable form should enjoy the highest priority on the farm. Hay, straw, maize stalks and grass hay, concentrates, silo fodder, etc., can be stored for long periods without a significant loss of nutritional value, and such stockpiled supplies should not be regarded as a dead investment of capital. On the contrary, the supplies have an important capital-saving value where the farmer uses them to keep his stock alive in times of drought. But then I want to bring it to the Minister’s attention once again, and I want to do so cordially and urgently, that it is physically impossible for every farmer to build up a fodder bank. He does not have adequate capital to do so, but it will not cost the Government a fortune. The Drought Commission estimated that it would cost at the most R10,000,000 to establish the initial fodder bank, whether it is established by a cooperative or by various co-operatives, or in any other way. But the fact remains that if we do not collect this fodder in times of abundance and store it, the man who grows maize will not bale his stalks because there will be no market for it. The man who has superfluous chaff will not be able to sell it. [Time limit.]

In my opinion the hon. members who spoke about agriculture to-night could really have made a better contribution. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) gave a single example to indicate what a man’s income is from a dairy, without going into the details of how one can really ascertain the production costs of that man’s undertaking. I really do not think the hon. members on the opposite side advanced one proper argument to-night. The hon. member for Durban (Point) made one of his famous after-dinner speeches and masqueraded as a great secretary for agriculture. I think the hon. member should rather have stayed there as secretary. I think he would have done much better as a great secretary than as a small politician in the field of agriculture. [Interjection.] The hon. member thinks that if he is in Durban, he is a Nationalist, and I think he is right, because Durban is becoming Nationalist. The hon. member for East London (City) confined himself mainly to agricultural matters, but he did not bring a piece of beef with him this time. In the Budget Debate the hon. member came here with a piece of beef and founded his entire speech on that. That piece of beef has probably been devoured by now, and to-night he has nothing more to say about meat. What he offered us to-night was a bare piece of rib. Tonight the hon. member adopted the same line as other hon. members. They want more farmers and larger farms and larger incomes. Now I want to ask you, Sir, how are they going to manage that?, They are always advancing the argument of the depopulation of the rural areas. Do they want all the farmers and all their descendants to remain in the rural areas? How are we going to bring about more farmers with larger farms? Surely that does not tally with the facts. How can one have more farmers with larger farms and a higher income? The more farmers there are, the smaller the land will be and the more uneconomic those farming units with a limited rainfall will become. Those gentlemen are prone to references to the system this Government is applying in agriculture, but if it had not been for the Government, the farmers of South Africa would not have been able to withstand these droughts as well as they are doing at present, and I want to refer specifically to our cattle farmers. What was the position of the cattle farmers when the hon. members on the opposite side were still in power? They should take a look at those figures rather than to come here with a piece of choice beef and say that that is the price of beef, when the aitchbone steak forms only 1.57 per cent of the total carcass. I want to remind the hon. members of the system applied in respect of the cattle industry when the hon. members on the opposite side were still in power. At present our stock numbers are more or less the same as in those years, but what was the position of the cattle farmer? Last time the hon. member for East London (City) quoted from the Fanner’s Weekly and boasted that it was actually the farmers’ Bible. I also want to quote from it. What do they say?

The years which brought the hasty and ill-advised introduction of the rigid fixed price system by the Government of that time had caused much of the meat industry’s present production troubles and are directly attributable to the fact that South African beef producers were robbed under that system of true parity value with consequent discouragement of production.

That is what the Farmer’s Weekly has to say about the days when they were still in power. What happened then?

Is that a leading article?

It is not a leading article, but it is an article written by the General Secretary of the S.A. Federation of Meat Traders. It was not even written by a farmer, but all the farmers agree with that. [Interjections.] If that hon. member claims that all farmers do not agree with that, then the so-called friends of the farmers on that side who represent urban constituencies will be even fewer after the next election, and then there will be even more farmers here. That was the position in those times. They talk about unrealistic price fixing under this Government. What was the price of first-grade beef in those times? It was R5.40. It is now R16. If it had not been for this Government the cattle farmers could not have withstood this drought so well. The prices and every aspect of marketing have been looked after. What was the position? The price fixing resulted in an irregular supply of stock, maldistribution between seasons, between the various control systems and between controlled and uncontrolled areas. In the days when those hon. members were in power, it was not only the producer who was dissatisfied but also the consumer, because the supply of meat was not adequate.

And are all of them contented now?

Strangely enough, that discontentment has persisted, and will persist, towards hon. members on that side, as a result of the misdeeds of that side of the House, and after every election they will become fewer unless they cross over to this side of the House. This side of the House and the Government is basically interested in the progress of agriculture. and of the cattle farmer, and that is why all those measures have been taken. If time allows me, I should like to bring the following two aspects to the attention of the Minister. I feel this should be our future course.

Whether justified or not, there is to-day the basic feeling that in future we shall perhaps no longer be able to meet the beef requirements of the ever-growing population of the country. Over and above the factors affecting beef production that fall under Agricultural Technical Services, there are two aspects that fall under Agricultural Economics and Marketing. One is prices and the other marketing. Those two aspects can promote the production of beef. As I see it, one cannot encourage production unless one skims off the products that are ready for the market. There should not be an accumulation of products that are ready for the market. That is, we should be able to skim off those products when they are ready for the market. At present it is thought in South Africa that we should not export beef but that the beef should be kept in reserve for the South African consumer. By doing so we discourage the production of beef to a large extent. I therefore want to plead that our policy in respect of the exportation of beef should enjoy serious consideration, and that when the farmer’s product is ready for the market, we should be able to absorb it. Whether it can be absorbed by the trade or by the consumer does not matter. That product should be taken up, and if it cannot be absorbed in South Africa, we should export it. That would stimulate production to such an extent that there would be larger productive cattle-population, and that would encourage production. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Karas, who has just sat down, gives me the impression that if he is supposed to be the spokesman for the cattle farmers of South Africa, they have sent somewhat of a youth to speak for them. He speaks so easily of what happened 20 years ago under the regime of the United Party: Perhaps he is very young and cannot remember what happened in 1932. What was the price of beef then? I wonder ii he can remember that in 1932 we threw away sheep skins and cattle hides because there was no market. And then he comes along and tells us very cleverly what happened in 1948. It would be more fitting if that hon. member made sure what percentage of a beef carcase is formed by. the short rib, and the chuck rib, and the round, and then he would know that it is not 1.57 per cent.

Can the hon. member tell us what is the percentage?

There is no need for me to say that. I said the other day that the consumers’ price was exorbitant. If the hon. member wants to say that the prices paid by the consumers are reasonable, then he should get up and say so, and then the consumers would run him out of the country.

I should like to pursue the argument I advanced as regards the establishment of a fodder bank or fodder banks, one or more, decentralized or not, whether State-aided., operated by co-operatives or by companies, to ensure that when we are hit by a drought— which happens virtually every year—there will be an additional supply of fodder by means of which we shall be able to keep the animals alive. I want to go further and plead with the Minister that if we can do that, we would keep the dairy production much more, constant. I should like, to have the hon. the Minister’s attention. but he is now speaking to someone else. I repeat that if we could do that arid if we could establish a supply of the available roughage and concentrates, and could store silo fodder in such a way that it would be less prone to fire, we would succeed in doing three things. We would have a bank as a reasonable insurance against droughts. We would have a method to store the supplies, to keep our dairy production fairly constant, and we would have a method to prepare animals for the market before we send them there. All three of these things are most important in our agricultural economics. The fact remains that we are marketing animals of which a large percentage are not ready for the market. As soon as we are struck by a drought the farmers begin to send the animals to the market, as they are doing now, because they do not have fodder to feed the animals. The market is continually overloaded with inferior animals that do not carry the necessary weight. We are slaughtering the capital of our stock at a weight on the hoof that is less than it should be. I want to make a strong plea that a committee should be constituted to investigate this matter, whether it is possible to accumulate all available supplies in times of abundance and to store it in a form where it can easily be kept and where the storage risk is not so great, where it can be stored for a longer period, and that the Government should assert itself and should support the effort by establishing the initial supply. Once that has been done, I do not believe it will be necessary to do it again because it will then function in the way any other marketing scheme functions, where new supplies are purchased as the existing supplies are sold. In other words, it will become a rolling scheme that would take care of itself. I am not critical in this regard and I am not reproaching anybody, but I am making a sincere plea that the Minister should consider this matter. We have pleaded for it repeatedly. It has become essential in this country. We cannot meet one drought after another in the way we met this one. I think the Minister visited the Great Karoo recently. For almost 500 miles conditions there are terrifying. We have to take care of our stock by making provision in times when roughage is available, so that we can store it for use in times of drought.

The hon. member for East London (City) said he did not want to criticize the Minister. I want to tell him that he has no reason to criticize the Minister and the Government, considering that so much was done for the farmers during this drought. The Opposition nevertheless adopted this negative approach of theirs in the election, and they did not succeed in achieving any success with it among the farmers, the backbone of this nation. They are certainly making no impression on anybody present here to-night.

I should like to convey a few ideas with regard to the tobacco industry, but allow me firstly to pay tribute to the memory of the late Dr. Campher. Dr. Campher was known throughout the country for his selfless service to the agricultural industry, and all of us know that his first love was the tobacco industry. At present the M.C.T.A. is a symbol of what can be achieved along the lines of the co-operative principle. The increase in the excise duty on tobacco is accepted as an established fact. It is gladdening to know that the excise duty on the primary product of the tobacco planters of South Africa is making such a large contribution to the Treasury. The tobacco industry has been hard hit by the drought conditions that have been afflicting the farmers for the past few years. I am grateful that the hon. the Minister allowed an increase this year as regards the tobacco prices, and also as regards the assistance rendered to the farmers by means of State advances. Despite that, the tobacco industry is a sensitive industry and I am fully confident that the hon. the Minister will give careful consideration to the economic position of the tobacco farmer for the following reasons, and I make these representations willingly, firstly because the domestic consumption of tobacco remained virtually static for many years. The official figures from customs and excise show that the consumption has decreased since the introduction of the increased excise duty in 1958. It was only in 1964-5 that the consumption reached and exceeded the 1957 mark. Here it should be borne in mind that in other respects the country has enjoyed great economic prosperity and progress in the past number of years. If we took a most conservative figure of 3 per cent per annum as the average annual increase in consumption, then our consumption should even in 1965 have been 19.26 per cent and 10.55 per cent higher than the actual consumption in cigarettes and pipe tobacco in 1965. Before the drought the annual decrease in consumption made a significant contribution to leaf tobacco surpluses, and producers had to meet increasing production costs without an increased market.

On a point of order, may I draw your attention to Standing Order 113, and ask whether the hon. member is now refreshing his memory or reading his speech?

The hon. member may not read his speech.

I did not read it. I would gladly put down my notes.

The hon. member may continue.

As I have said, the annual decrease in consumption made a significant contribution to leaf tobacco surpluses before the drought, which resulted in a surplus of leaf tobacco. The farmers in Rustenburg were saddled with this surplus, and the M.C.T.A. and Sentabak took action and found an overseas market for our surplus production of tobacco. The drawback of the overseas market is that we find that the prices cannot compare with the domestic prices. In other words, the domestic price must subsidize the overseas price. There is a further problem as regards the overseas market, and that is that the overseas manufacturers prefer using numerous types of tobacco. No fewer than 23 types of tobacco are used in manufacturing cigarettes so that the cigarette smoker will not notice it if one of those types of tobacco is removed from the cigarette. A further problem is that the working costs in the production of tobacco in certain other countries are much lower than in South Africa. You will therefore appreciate. Sir, that the position of the tobacco farmer is such that in order to rehabilitate him economically, it is essential that an increased consumption and market should be found so as to sell their produce at stable prices. Tobacco farming is an intensive undertaking that demands a great deal of capital expenditure for the processing of its product. I know that in my own constituency the land cannot be used economically for growing other crops. I shall therefore appreciate it if the hon. the Minister will give consideration to the following matters in respect of this industry, and I am convinced that he will: Firstly, to bring in the tobacco industry as regards the advances provided for co-operatives that have been introduced for other sectors of the agricultural industry, so that these advances will apply to the tobacco farmer too; and secondly, that concessions should be made as regards the overseas market. At present the value of the overseas market in foreign exchange amounts to plus-minus R8,000,000 annually. In future it can and will develop and be of great value to the economy of the country. Here I should like to mention the great work done by the Tobacco Research Institute at Rustenburg, which is doing everything in its ability to reduce the working costs. I want to mention here that the farmers in my constituency are very grateful for what has been achieved by the Government through the establishment of this Research Institute. I believe that in years to come we shall be able to reduce our working costs to such an extent that we shall be able to compete with other countries. In the meanwhile it is my plea to the hon. the Minister that this pet child, the tobacco farmer, should be assisted by means of concessions, or in some other way that I leave in the able hands of the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, now that meat, particularly beef, and tobacco has been discussed, I should like to use this opportunity to say a few words about the rooibos tea industry of Clanwilliam.

Ice cream.

I want to recommend that the hon. member who is now thinking of ice cream should consider drinking Clanwilliam’s rooibos tea instead of Oriental tea. It will certainly be of great benefit to his health. The red tea or, as it was previously known, the rooibos tea of our country, is produced mainly in three districts: Clanwilliam, Vanrhynsdorp and Calvinia. It is produced in the mountains, in the highlands of those districts, in other words, it is produced in the most attractive and the most wholesome climatic regions of our country. It is not quite such an insignificant industry. Hon. members may not be aware of it, but we are producing 3,500,000 pounds of rooibos tea in South Africa annually. If we bear in mind that this product is a truly South African product, that it is a very fragrant and wholesome product, then I think we must say a good word for the rooibos tea industry to-night. I do that particularly because there is at present a surplus of approximately 1,400.000 lbs. of rooibos tea in our country. That is an indication that our people have not yet discovered rooibos tea, and that we prefer to pour the imported tea in Oriental-orientated snobbery. It is certainly not better, and I therefore feel that we should bring this matter to your attention. Let me mention by way of contrast that our import of Oriental tea amounted to the colossal total of 38,222,000 lbs. the past year, and it is costing our country approximately R15,000,000 to import that tea.

There was a time when we here in South Africa thought that anything we could produce or manufacture here, not only in the field of tea production but also in other fields—I am thinking for example of South African wood and many other things—was inferior. As far as our South African wood production is concerned, we have learned in a relatively short period that our own product can also be highly recommended, and at present we are building not only dwellings but also churches, public buildings and virtually any construction work of South African wood.

The same applies to our South African rooibos tea also. I want to use this opportunity to read you an analysis made by the Stellenbosch Fruit and Food Research Institute with regard to this tea. The tannin content of South African tea is 1 per cent, which is 12 times lower than that of Oriental tea. Hon. members know that that is the ingredient in tea that is harmful to the human body. South African rooibos tea contains no caffeine, as against the approximately 3 per cent caffeine in Oriental tea. The protein content of rooibos tea is no less than 6.9 per cent. The iron content is .033 per cent, magnesium .33 per cent, aluminium .99 per cent, calcium .2 per cent and potassium .56 per cent. More or less all the minerals needed by the human body may be found in South African rooibos tea. We do not think of that. We often complain of all the stones in the kidney and gall-bladder troubles that we develop, and many of those ailments are the result of the consumption of the expensive Oriental tea we buy, while here in South Africa we are producing a tea that is actually recommended and used as a health beverage in American hospitals.

I would like us in this House, and also our country and our population, to take note of this fact, to set the position right and to reduce the spending of foreign exchange on the importation of Oriental tea by making full use of our South African rooibos tea and also by encouraging its production. There is an important matter which we should always bear in mind. In importing our tea we should bear in mind that we are continually supporting countries that are certainly not favourably disposed towards us, countries that so frequently take a stand against us in international bodies and organizations.

I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Department to-night to do even more to promote the production and marketing of South African rooibos tea. I acknowledge that the Department has already rendered a considerable amount of assistance to those tea farmers, assistance through the establishment of a Control Board and the orderly marketing of this product. The tea farmers are in fact very grateful for that. But I want to suggest for the Minister’s consideration that we should endeavour to restrict the imports of Oriental tea to the extent to which our own tea is available. This is by no means a new principle, because we have already done that with regard to other locally-produced commodities. We have done that in respect of the importation of South African building timber, as I have already mentioned. When the Government and the Department began to apply that policy and to exert pressure, we suddenly discovered South African wood. I therefore want to suggest for the consideration of the Minister and his Department that we should restrict the importation of foreign tea to the extent to which local tea is available here. I think the tea farmers of our country are entitled to this degree of encouragement and protection, and it will also help us to bring South African rooibos tea to the notice of our people and to help them to shake off the snobbery to which I have referred.

Perhaps we can also consider letting the importers of Oriental tea accept some responsibility for the distribution and marketing of South African tea. Those people are making large profits. Oriental tea is marketed at a much higher price than South African tea. I think it is more or less 50 per cent more expensive. I think it has become time that we draw the attention of those who import tea from abroad, to the fact that they should also accept responsibility to some extent for the marketing and the distribution of our own product. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman. I have found the debate this evening very interesting indeed. I do not think that any hon. member here will deny the seriousness of the debate. Despite Government assertions, we see that the credit squeeze is affecting the agriculturist, the ordinary farmer, very much indeed.

None of us on this side of the House deny to-night that the Government is doing to an extent what it can in respect of subsidies, rebates and so forth. We see that the Government is paying R5,000,000 in respect of dairy subsidies. I am pleased to see that the Minister has arrived to hear what I have to say, because I am serious about this. As I say, the Government is paying R5,000,000 in dairy subsidies and in the year 1966-7 will be paying in the region of R220,000 in subsidies, an increase Over last year of R70,000. We know, too, that in respect of fodder for drought-stricken stock, or drought relief schemes as they are termed, the Government is subsidizing an amount of R3,000,000. Despite all these subsidies and railway rebates we find that the farmer is having a very hard time. No one has suggested here to-night that the farmer is living in a land of clover—I am pleased to say, no one has tried to deny the fact that the agriculturist is having a very lean time. We all accept the fact that farmers, especially the dairy farmers, are becoming less and less. See what high overhead expenses they have to meet, despite the subsidies.

Mr. Chairman, what worries me is that subsidies and the odd rebate the farmer might get is not the solution to the problem facing agriculture to-day. In other words, I believe we have to think beyond those boundaries. We must think big. It is something far bigger than just the odd little subsidy, odd rebate and odd assistance which the farmer might receive in say. building a shed, to cover his forage harvest, or fodder bank, etc. This is not the solution for the farmer. If I as a chairman of a soil conservation committee, went to a farmer and said, “Under the Soil Conservation Act we require that you as a farmer must now spare one-third of your property. You must get rid of the stock running on one-third of your property”, it is all very well for me to suggest that because that would be a solution. But the farmer would then turn to me and say, “Now what do I do with my stock?” And that is where The Soil Conservation Act gets bogged down. That is where all of us get bogged down. We have not got the answer. But we have to find the answer. With the years of incessant drought—we have already experienced three years of drought—veld conditions are deteriorating, rapidly. As regards the farmer, particularly the smaller farmer, farming—on an economic unit, rain will not be of great beneficial value unless he can spare a certain portion of his property, for 12 months. I plead with the Government and with the hon. the Minister. The Minister must find a solution to relieve the farmer of responsibility for one-third of his stock in order to spare one-third of his property. This is the solution. When the rains eventually come, he can then carry on. knowing that one-third can be spared for a full twelve months. This is the duty of The Soil Conservation Act under this Government. We all know that if we can carry out the Soil Conservation Act as laid down, that this is the answer. But it does not help for me as a committee member on that soil conservation board to tell the farmer what to do, when I cannot help him, because of lack of policy.

I believe that if the Government cannot find the solution here, then they should look further afield, beyond the borders of our country to see what is going on in other countries in Africa. I believe that in certain countries bordering us they are more advanced in agriculture than we ourselves are. There is an old Afrikaans saying, “Die Regering is besig om wal te gooi.” That does not help. It is no use closing the stable door once the horse has gone, or throwing “wal” when once the water has broken over. We have to think ahead. We must plan years ahead to find a solution to ensure the security of the agriculturist throughout South Africa.

We have heard so much about the drought conditions from Hon. Government Members; no one on this side is denying that conditions are dry. This Government has been in power for 18 years now, and we have had very good seasons during that period. Now we have had three successive bad seasons, with very little rain. When the rains come again no one here will deny that within the next few years we will be faced with a drought again. We will be in a worse predicament than that in which we find ourselves to-day. Every time a drought hits South Africa conditions get worse. Conditions are deteriorating. Those who take an interest in soil conservation—cannot deny that our veld conditions are deteriorating, and it is in this regard that we have to find a solution— and urgently. I know every small farmer welcomes, the odd subsidy and soon, but if the average farmer is going insolvent, the subsidies will not save him. As I say, we have to consider something bold, and to formulate a policy which will give us a solution to this problem. The hon. the Deputy Minister smiles. Maybe he has a solution? I very much doubt it? Perhaps he would like me to give him the solution. But it is the job of the Deputy Minister, holding the high post he does, to find the solution. And that is what he is sitting here for.

There is another matter worrying me, and worrying many of us who deal with co-operative societies. As you know, the bona fide farmer gets a rebate on raw fodder, such as lucerne hay and peanut hay, which he has to transport to his property suffering under drought conditions. Being in a declared drought stricken area, he will get the rebate from the railways. But what concerns us, and this is another problem which I should like the Minister to solve, is the need for a rebate between the producer of raw materials, and the cooperative societies who produce drought rations for sheep. It is not the ordinary rebate which the bona fide farmer draws under drought conditions. After all is said and done, the farmer is the co-operative society, and the co-operative society is the farmer. Co-operative societies under drought conditions to-day are placing orders for hundreds of tons of raw materials, such as lucerne hay, cow peas, and peanut hay, [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, to-night we have really seen something most spectacular. The hon. member for East London (North), who has just sat down, pleaded that we should take certain steps to consolidate the small farms into one large farm. He is advocating that now. Just before him the hon. member for Newton Park spoke and said that the rural areas were becoming depopulated. How can he reconcile those two points? The hon. members on the opposite side are always blowing hot and cold. I want to tell this Committee that I have never been personally involved in an agricultural debate. But to-night I saw certain things, and I saw people who had never spoken in an agricultural debate enter the debate all of a sudden to speak about personal matters. If one draws comparisons in a debate, and if one wants to criticize a government in a debate, one should do so according to the norm established by the opposite party, as against their achievements.

Now, Sir, you know that the United Party’s last Minister of Agriculture was a certain Mr. Strauss. I want to read to this House what Mr. Strauss said when he resigned from that party.

Did he resign?

When he was kicked out. What did he say when he resigned from that party on 27th August, 1959? I am not going back as far as the hon. member for East London (City) did, namely to 1931. He said the following (translation)—

That was his statement. Now, this moral being that has shrunk to what did he couple that? He coupled it to the fact that that Party has reached he stage where it is simply criticizing and is producing nothing positive, nothing constructive. It is all very well to say that there is no long-term planning, but what is the long-term planning that should be undertaken? I am going to mention some of those long-term plans to you. I am also going to couple them to the history of that Party.

The hon. member for Newton Park made the statement that the Minister already has many reports of inquiries. He then brought the accusation against the Government that it did not institute a proper inquiry in respect of the agricultural problem in general until if was forced to do that. But what about all the other inquiries that were reported and acted upon?

I want to mention one of the examples. One of the inquiries was the inquiry into agricultural financing and the credit position of the farmer in South Africa. As a result of that inquiry this Party took the necessary action. I am grateful to-night that I was one of the members of its parliamentary working group and the chairman of the committee which eventually gave us a Department of Agricultural Credit in South Africa, which makes it possible for the farmer who cannot obtain credit facilities through the ordinary commercial channels, through the ordinary banking institutions, through the Land Bank, to obtain such facilities by means of this Department, under the Minister. But what did that Party do as far as this matter was concerned? I shall tell you what they did. That same Department was advocated during that Party’s term of office. I quote from Hansard No. 26 of 1936. Then the following plea was made here in the House of Assembly (Hansard, Col. 1437)—

I admit that the Land Bank is a very good institution if it could only meet all the applications, but it cannot. It is impossible for it to comply with all the requests.

And now the hon. member who has so much to say about price structures should listen. The speaker continued and said—

In the days of the United Party it cost 80 sheep or 160 bags of maize to pay the interest on an overdrawn account of £1,000. But I want to go further. On 1st June, 1936, the same person who advocated that Department in the House, said the following—I quote from Hansard No. 27, Col. 4673—

—that was in the days of the United Party—

We have to devise something permanent. That is what this party has done, but what did the United Party do with a man who pleaded for that? The next morning they threw him out of the caucus and banned him from the Party. Incidentally, he was my father, at that time M.P. for Wakkerstroom. Now hon. members on the opposite side come along and ask what is our long-term policy. In the first place there is the Marketing Act, an Act introduced for the benefit of the farmer, to enable him to set his affairs right. This Act also makes it possible to plan the necessary long-term price structure for the farmer. In the second place we have now also succeeded in devising a finance system for the less privileged farmer, i.e. the category-three farmer, in order to finance him as regards his working capital.

There is a further aspect, and here I want to speak to the hon. member for Newton Park. He came here and said that there had been certain warnings. He mentioned five: too much was being paid for land, there was not adequate efficiency, etc. He then came and said that we were farming on uneconomic units.

I did not say they were warnings. I said they were excuses.

He came and said that we should tell the farmer that we are farming on uneconomic units because the rural areas are becoming depopulated. But does he not know what happened? Let us see what is happening in other parts of the world. Let me refer to Canada as an example in this regard. Canada has established a special department, namely in terms of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. Through that department the following conclusion was arrived at in Canada—

The report goes on to say that smaller farms should be made larger, and then proceeds—

It is pointed out very explicitly that the economy of Canada has proved that with a view to mechanization, economic structure, efficiency and labour-saving, farms should be developed into economic units. It is therefore a long-term policy. Now in the first place this Government has inquired into the 8,000,000 morgen in the Northern Transvaal region. The Government appreciates the fact that the farms there have to be consolidated into economic units on a voluntary basis. For those people who may be uprooted in the process, this Government provides a haven elsewhere, under the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, which is preparing new settlements. Is that not a long-term policy? [Time limit.]

Sometime ago there was also propaganda on the part of the United Party that this position was attributable to the commissions and omissions of this Government. Recently, however, when prayer meetings were held for rain, we noticed that in the rural areas as well as in the cities those meetings were attended by thousands of people who had never come into personal contact with a farmer. Those people knew that the Government was not to blame, but that it is ordained by the Almighty. But despite the situation in which the farmer has been for the past number of years, the Government nevertheless succeeded in feeding the nation as never before. That the nation was contented, was proved at the last election. From 1959 the Government assisted the farmers by means of aid schemes, and through the dark years that followed those farmers who availed themselves of the Government’s assistance were instrumental in increasing our stock numbers by more than 3,000,000. That proves that the farmer used the assistance of the Government in order to produce the food needed by the nation. But in spite of that the propaganda made by the United Party for 2½ months before the recent election was the same as that made by them this afternoon. But that propaganda has never had any effect, nor will it have any. It will have no effect, because the people accept that the Government is not to blame for current conditions.

But there is another matter to which I want to refer, and that is that the Government and organized agriculture co-operated so well that an amount of R120,000,000 could be raised by one fund, of which R50,000,000 was given back to the farmer and R70,000,000 deposited in the Land Bank for assistance to the farmer as and when he needs it. While I was listening to the hon. member for East London (City), I doubted for a moment whether the United Party, or rather the old S.A. Party, had in fact been in power after 1933. Surely we came into power only in 1948. They therefore had 15 years to correct those things which the hon. member for East London (City) is trying to blame on this Government to-day. I know 1933, but I also know the 15 years of United Party government preceding 1948. I want to come to those years now. Beef prices were R7.1 for prime and R5.40 for first grade. That was their scheme. That is not even the price of a hide to-day. In 1948 the old price of R5.40 increased to R14. In their time the price of first grade mutton was 8.3c.

In what year?

In 1948, Mr. Chairman. the controlled price of mutton, i.e. first grade, was 8.3c, whereas to-day it is 17.5c. Mr. Chairman, I attribute that to the fact that the prices I am quoting to-day, under the régime of the National Party Government, are guaranteed prices. When the Opposition was in power, the prices were fixed prices and the farmers could not get one cent more for theimeat. To-day these guaranteed prices are much higher. [Interjection.] If I have made such a failure of the fixed wool prices as that made by the hon. member for East London (City), I would not be speaking to-night. I mention these things to prove that notwithstanding the fact that the present prices are virtually 250 per cent higher than in the time of the United Party, the consumers of that time paid twice as much for meat as to-day. And, Mr. Chairman, I shall prove that. In those days the poor man was not given an opportunity or enabled, by what he earned, to buy a piece of meat. He had to sleep on the stop and stand outside the shop windows. [Interjections.] That hon. member knows that in his own neighbourhood the poor people did not have enough money to buy pork.

But then the farmers were still living on the farms and were not going bankrupt.

And to-day, what is the position to-day? In those days meat cost from 7c to 8c, and the rich man could get it only because he got his meat under the counter. The poor man could never get a piece of meat. To-day it is the opposite. Today we can go anywhere in the country and whether a person is Black or White, he is able to enjoy a piece of meat. And that despite the existing conditions, conditions in which one would not have expected people to be able to afford it, or that it would in fact be available. Mr. Chairman, I want to say once again that in the days of the United Party they quarrelled so much about the meat scheme and the meat prices that people were not only kicked out. but United Party supporters would not even greet each other at their agricultural congresses. That is how they differed about the marketing of meat. Mr. Chairman, I want to come to another matter, and that relates to our uneconomic units. These uneconomic units did not come about in the time of the National Party or in the time of the National Party Government. They came into being in the course of a lifetime and more than a lifetime. Through the years the land was subdivided continually and became smaller and smaller. And it was this Government. Mr. Chairman, that was bold and courageous enough to step in and put a stop to that state of affairs. And that is the reason, Mr. Chairman. why this is the Government that will one day receive the honour and the credit for the fact that it has rehabilitated the farmers who went down in those years of their existence, and has put them on economic units once again. I am convinced that it is not only the Government, but in particular our hon. Ministers who are the friends of the farmers in general.

Mr. Chairman. I wish to direct my first remark to the hon. member for Heilbron, who raised the question here of the rural Bantu. He made the statement that my hon. Leader made an incorrect conclusion in the figure which he gave in establishing the rural Bantu numbers. The statement he made —and I find it difficult to understand that he should make a statement like that in the official position which he holds—is that the rural Bantu, as reflected in the returns of the statistics, include the rural Bantu of the Reserves. I do not think one could even consider for a moment that there can be any substance in a statement like that, because the figures very clearly show that the Bantu of the Reserves amount to 35 per cent of the total Bantu population. That establishes their figure at something like 3,800,000. And the rural Bantu, that is the total number, is 33 per cent and something like 3,500,000. And there is no question that because of the fact that the number of Bantu employed on farms are less, means that there has been a reduction. The increase has certainly taken place. The Reserves have been denuded much the same way as the platteland has been depopulated from the White angle. The hon. member must not come along and try to pull the wool over our eyes by making a statement like that.

Mr. Chairman, I now come to the hon. member for Prieska. The hon. member must not come here at this time of life and make comparisons of 20 to 30 years ago. What are the circumstances to-day compared with the circumstances of those days. And at least then people had a pocketful of money. What have they got to-day? Nothing. No, Mr. Chairman, I think that we must abide by, and hon. members on that side of the House must give heed to. what their Prime Minister said. Let us be realistic. Let us be objective in our appraisal of conditions to-day. Do not let us be childish. If you want to make a comparison then I would say compare the situation to-day under this Government with what it might have been had the United Party been in power. [Interjections.] Hon. members make a noise. But. Mr. Chairman, that statement is factual. Because they must not take credit for the development of the position of South Africa as it is to-day. It is not through their efforts and what they are doing that South Africa is to-day what it is. It is that in spite of them. What South Africa is to-day is because of its inherent strength. That is why it is what it is. And if it had the United Party to guide it, it would have been very much further to-day than what it is [Interjections.] We have the position to-day where those hon. members of the Government are busy trying to apply laws which were established by the United Party We are the people who put the Marketing Act there. [Interjections.] And Mr. Chairman. I make this statement: To-day they do not know how to use the Marketing Act. [Interjections.]

Order!

I wonder. Sir. whether the hon. member for Prieska can tell us for how long under this Government will people, with the tendency we have to-day, still be able to enjoy meat at all.

Only the Transkei.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with the sub-head of the hon. the Minister and that is this very matter of beef production.

Progress reported.