I move—

I oppose this motion. I doubt whether anyone really requires to know the reasons. I think they are obvious, but nevertheless for the record I would like to give the House my reasons for opposing the motion before the House.

I see no benefit in postponing this Bill and referring it to a Select Committee, but I should have greeted with joy the total withdrawal of this Bill. I think the correct course for dealing with this Bill is not to send it to a Select Committee, but to relegate it to the wastepaper basket. The manoeuvre which has resulted in the postponement of this matter and its relegation to a Select Committee gives me no joy whatever. I was not concerned in the cosy talks which obviously took place between the Official Opposition, the hon. the Prime Minister, presumably the hon. the Minister of the Interior at some stage or another, and the leader of the Coloured Representatives, but those persons who did participate in these talks gave the House the benefit thereof in the communique they gave the House yesterday when the hon. the Minister introduced his unopposed motion. As soon as I heard the communique and the terms of the agreement which had been reached between the Government, the Official Opposition and the Coloured Representatives, I knew that this motion could not be allowed to go unopposed and hence my action yesterday.

Now this agreement—and I can hardly call it a gentlemen’s agreement—on which the motion is based has made it clear that the Select Committee to which the Bill will be sent will deliberate the Bill on much the same basis as the original Bill which was introduced in this House. In other words, the idea will be, as the hon. the Minister of the Interior has more or less told us, to find a modus operandi of preventing the Coloured people from selecting the Representatives of their choice. What is looked for is a less complicated formula, and that is all. For the rest it is exactly the same terms of reference out of which arose the original Bill. The Minister told us when he moved the motion yesterday that he and his Government were still intent on what he called “preventing political exploitation” of the Coloured people. This is exactly what the Government told us before it introduced the first Bill, which is now being sent to the Select Committee. In the light of the contents of that Bill, which is now coming back in an amended form but is still the same sort of Bill, I am absolutely astonished that the Leader of the Official Opposition, or anybody else for that matter, in this House, can for one moment believe that anything acceptable can emerge from the Select Committee.

Order! The hon. member must confine her remarks to the motion before the House. She must not go beyond it.

But may I point out to you, Sir, that yesterday, in voicing their approval of the motion, both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Coloured Representatives were allowed to give reasons why they accepted the motion. May I please not give reasons now why I reject the motion?

We have a different motion before us to-day.

Sir, with respect, we have a motion before us to-day which is just the same motion, only it is being opposed.

The hon. member must confine her remarks to the motion.

Yes, Sir, I am attempting to do so. I am giving my reasons for opposing the motion which is before the House to-day. I want to say that exactly the same mandate, therefore, has been given to the Select Committee to which the Bill is going to be referred. I, unlike other hon. members in this House, see absolutely no distinction in being elected to Parliament to serve White, constituents or being elected to serve Coloured constituents. All of us in this House have ridden into Parliament on the backs of voters, and the colour of those backs is quite irrelevant as far as I am concerned. [Interjections.] I make no distinction on the colour basis, as the hon. the Deputy Minister does. [Interjection.]

Order!

The Minister mentioned. when he introduced the motion yesterday, this question of a Select Committee considering the Bill in the light of preventing this political exploitation. I do not know why anyone imagines that the voters concerned, the Coloured voters, whom the hon. member for Peninsula always refers to so patronisingly as “these poor Coloured people”, are not able to discern when they are being exploited, and if so, if those elections had proceeded according to due date, the Coloured voters themselves would have selected people whom they know were not exploiting them. It is precisely for this reason, because the Government knows, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows and the hon. the leader of the Coloured Representatives knows, that the Coloureds would in fact have voted for people who not only have not exploited them but have represented them extremely well in the Provincial Council, where we have had 18 months of experience …

Order, order! The hon. member must confine herself to the terms of the motion.

Sir, I am replying to the hon. the Minister when he introduced the motion.

Yes, but the hon. member is allowing her thoughts to travel too widely.

Very well. Sir, I will narrow down my thoughts. May I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in giving us his reason for supporting the motion, stated that he was well aware that there had been abuses in the previous Coloured elections and that there had been irregularities, especially, he said, as far as registration was concerned. Well, if there had been abuses in the election of Coloured Representatives, may I ask why the defeated candidates or the Government did not in fact take action to have those elections upset? They had every possible legal recourse. Had there been abuses in the election of the Coloured Representatives, there was nothing to stop anybody, the Government or the defeated candidates or anybody else, from going to the courts of law and having those elections upset.

The trouble with your party is that you have more money than votes amongst the Coloured people.

I can say that the trouble with the Deputy Minister and his party is that they have more votes than brains. [Interjection.]

Order! Has the Deputy Minister not received his reply?. [Laughter.]

The trouble with the Deputy Minister is that he does not have the brains to appreciate it. As I say, the Government and anybody else in fact could have upset those elections at the time. If the Leader of the Opposition was referring to certain cases, the few cases that were heard about the irregular registration of voters, I wish to point out that the registrations were done by commissioners of oaths in the employ of the Government, because those are the terms of the law. They had to be in the employ of the Department, in terms of the law, and to Use this as a reason for supporting this motion is to my mind quite absurd. Why in the 18 months that have elapsed since those irregularities took place, did the hon. Leader of the Opposition not ask for a Select Committee of this House to investigate the irregularities as far as the registration of Coloured voters is concerned? Why only now when the forthcoming elections were imminent, why only now did the hon. Leader of the Opposition consider it the correct time to have an investigation into the so-called irregularities in regard to the registration of Coloured voters? Sir. this excuse holds no water. I want to give a further example. Sir, there are irregularities, and there always have been irregularities, in regard to White elections. There were abuses in the postal vote system for White elections. This House appointed a Select Committee to go into those abuses, and it was never, never considered that because there were abuses in the postal voting system for White elections, that the whole system of the White franchise should therefore be referred to a Select Committee. And that is what is being done in terms of this motion because the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Minister have agreed that the whole system of election as far as the Coloured people are concerned, should be referred to a Select Committee. Well. Sir, I want to have no part in this whatsoever. Every time the Government has reconsidered the question of the Coloured franchise it has resulted in a further whittling away of their franchise rights.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the terms of the motion.

Well, Sir. if the reason for supporting this is a reconsideration of the whole position, I want to say that I have no hope whatsoever that it will result in any improvement in the representation of the Coloured people. Had it been a motion for the consideration of the return of the Coloured people to the Common Roll, that might have been a different proposition, but there is no question of anything like that and I say that the Coloured group …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion now.

Very well. Sir, I will conclude my remarks. I have said practically all I wished to say.

Hear, hear!

I have lots more to say, I might tell hon. members, a lot more to say in this House before they are finished hearing me. Unless of course the Government is considering a Bill to abolish …

Order!

Well, finally I then come to the last part of the communique which was issued on behalf of the Government, the official Opposition and the Independent Coloured Representatives yesterday, and that is the extension of the life in this House of the sitting M.P.s. Now, Sir, I cannot go into any details because there is a Bill coming before this House and then I shall be able to say all I want to say. I want to say at this juncture that I most emphatically object to any further prolongation of the term of office of the sitting M.P.s.

Order! That is not contained in the motion.

Sir, if I may say, Sir, it is part and parcel …

That is a different matter. The hon. member will have another opportunity to debate that.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon. Leader of the Coloured Group on my right here, my bench mate, my neighbour …

Your stable mate.

Well, the hon. member says “stable mate”. I think that is very appropriate. because if anybody is going to run against the hon. member, he has got about as much chance as Sea Cottage had in getting away from the starting post. In any case, I want to tell the hon. member that I have no appreciation to express to the Government for the step taken, no appreciation whatsoever. I do not believe that this is going to be in the best interests of the country. I say that the best interests of the country would have been served had this Bill been relegated to the waste paper basket and not to a Select Committee. The only benefit that could flow from this is to keep those hon. members here, it will give them a year’s additional employment in this House, and it will increase their pension benefits.

Order! The hon. member must now confine herself to the motion, or otherwise she must resume her seat.

Well, Sir, I have now concluded my remarks, and I simply wish to say that for the reasons I have given I strongly object to the motion before the House.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who, unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon, entered into an agreement with the hon. the Prime Minister in order to bring about a postponement of the Bill for at least a year, and to refer the subject matter of the Bill to a Select Committee, he, I think, did not expect any gratitude from the hon. member for Houghton, but we certainly did not expect anything so ungracious as the exhibition we have just seen in this House.

I want to say that it was unfortunate that in the process of exhibiting her lack of grace, she even had to impute mercenary motives concerning the pensions of certain members of this House. I think that on sober reflection, even she will regret that insinuation.

Sir, if the hon. member had used the arguments she did use in regard to a motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading, I would have had some sympathy with her. But we are dealing with a motion to refer the subject matter of the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading, before anybody in this House is committed to any one of the principles contained in the Bill. The effect of the motion will be that the Select Committee will be able to discuss all the surrounding circumstances that are related to this Bill. It means that it will give us an opportunity to think again and to discuss the position of the Coloured people in the South African political society. I am just wondering whether the opposition of the hon. member for Houghton means that she is satisfied with the position of the Coloured people in South Africa’s political society, because she thinks that no benefit can accrue to the Coloured people or to the South African body politic as a result of a discussion when nobody is committed to any one of the principles contained in this Bill.

Only when there is a return to the common roll.

She would prefer this Bill to be relegated to the waste paper basket. Good and well. But would the hon. member for Houghton have preferred the Government to continue with this Bill and put it on the Statute Book? That is the point. The hon. member insinuated that my Leader was trying to deal the Progressive Party a blow. Does she realize—I think she does—that if this Bill had become law, it would have meant the immediate end of the Liberal Party which is on the point of disbanding and that a mortal blow would have been inflicted on the Progressive Party? That has been arrested for the time being. There is an opportunity to think again and to discuss the whole matter again, and if our motives were as sordid and as ugly as the hon. member suggests and if our motive was only to harm the Progressive Party, our interest would have prescribed a course of not agreeing with the hon. the Prime Minister, to put up a fight here in Parliament and to let this Bill become law. Then we would have dealt a blow to the Progressive Party.

The hon. member for Houghton has a very difficult role to play in this House. We appreciate that. It is her task to use every possible opportunity to advance the cause of a party that has been discredited by the voters of South Africa to such an extent that even the leader of the Party, under the most favourable circumstances, forfeited his deposit. But surely, in trying to advance the cause of the Progressive Party at every opportunity, the hon. member should at least have some regard to the facts of the situation, to the truth of the situation and to the interests of South Africa and all the people of all races who live in this country. Those were the interests that were considered by the Leader of the Opposition when he agreed with the Prime Minister to refer the matter to a Select Committee in the sincere hope that as a result a new approach may be found to the problems of an important community in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely distasteful and very unpleasant for me to become involved in an argument with the hon. member for Houghton, but I feel I cannot allow her remarks to go unanswered this afternoon. In ordinary circumstances one would treat with absolute contempt some of the remarks that the hon. member has made. I refer to her personal reflections upon myself and some of my colleagues when she made the assertion that our attitude in regard to this motion before the House was motivated by the fact that we were going to get increased pension rights. I think she ought to be ashamed of herself, and let me say to the hon. member immediately that in so far as I am concerned, I have earned in my public service the maximum pension that I can ever attain. I want to mention that so that it is on record, and I want to repeat that I treat these remarks with absolute contempt.

If ever there was an example of a member of this House taking advantage of the privilege of this House in making a political attack on people, it is the speech that we have just had from the hon. member for Houghton. I think the time has come that she must be answered and answered vigorously by those of us who can answer, apart from the Government. I say that she has an axe to grind in this matter. She is longing to have as her stablemate here, a gentleman by the name of Jannie Steytler. [Interjections.] She cannot get over the fact that I am standing in the way of Jannie Steytler coming here. [Interjections.]

It will be a very big improvement.

I just want to put to the hon. member, as the hon. member for Yeoville rightly put to her: What is it that she is after? The Government came forward with a Bill which would have had to my mind most disastrous effects on the whole of South Africa. It would have had a devastating effect upon the political future of the White people of this country. The Government were prevailed upon, in the best interests of South Africa, to allow that Bill to be withdrawn before second reading, before we became involved in an acrimonious discussion, and allow it to go to calm the atmosphere of a Select Committee in order to see whether we can hammer out something which will prevent the Coloured people of this country becoming once again a political football in this country. To the everlasting credit of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Leader of the Opposition an agreement was arrived at whereby this Bill was to go to a Select Committee. The motion that we are discussing this afternoon is the suggestion that before the second reading this should go to the calm atmosphere of a Select Committee.

What does the hon. member want? She opposes this. For what reason? Would she rather that the Government proceeded with this Bill? Would she rather that South Africa became involved in this the most contentious piece of legislation that has ever been presented to Parliament? Is that what she wants? Or is she, I repeat, afraid of the fact that we are perhaps standing in the way of some small little Progressive people who are exploiting—I say this deliberately—the Coloured people for their own advantages, that we are preventing them from coming into the House.

The hon. member for Houghton had the temerity to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong when he said that he knew of abuses which had taken place in the compilation of the Coloured voters’ roll. She said that there were ways and means of dealing with that situation. She had ways and means of dealing with the situation. Last year in this House the hon. the Minister of Defence, who was then Minister of Coloured Affairs, said openly to her that her party was guilty of exploiting the Coloured people for the sake of their own party political gain, and he went on to say—I quote from Hansard Vol. 15 Col. 6244—

The Minister went on to say that he accused them that they were guilty of the grossest form of bribery in attaining this position. All the hon. member could say was to interject: “Nonsense.” The Minister said that if he was talking nonsense he would resume his seat and he said, and I quote from Hansard Col. 6245—

Why should I?

The hon. member said by way of interjection—

The Minister went on and said this—

An hon. member then interjected and said, “There’s your opportunity”. The Minister then went on and said, “I am giving her a chance”. He said, “Let her ask for a judicial commission to be appointed”.

Why should I?

The hon. member remained silent then. Neither she nor her party had the courage to ask for the appointment of such a commission. The hon. member had her opportunity. If these allegations are wrong, which the hon. Leader of the Opposition has made, she had an opportunity of having this matter investigated at the instance of the then Minister of Coloured affairs by a judicial commission.

I will have an opportunity at a later stage— I agree with you that this is not the occasion to do so—to bring to the notice of the House some of the grossest abuses and malpractices which have been indulged in by the party of which the hon. member is a representative. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not think that we are afraid of her. She will be confronted with it, and the names will be mentioned of some of the four gentlemen, who were trying to get into Parliament on the backs of these Coloured people, and we shall show how they are being directly responsible for exploiting the Coloured people.

The hon. member must come back to the motion.

I am coming back to the motion. Sir. I want to say that in my view the Government in consultation with the official Opposition have adopted a very statesmanlike attitude in allowing this matter to go to a Select Committee in the hope that the Select Committee, after hearing the views of the Coloured people, not of the Progressive Party, but the views of the Coloured people whose interests are affected by this matter, may be able to produce some measure which will at least settle the future political status of the Coloured people of South Africa for the foreseeable future. I wholeheartedly support the motion now before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am not getting up to participate in a quarrel between stablemates. I just happened to get the impression, while the hon. member was adopting such a post here this afternoon, that with her reference to the hon. member for Peninsula she really had “Beauty and the Beast” in mind. But it is not with that that I want to concern myself. I am only getting up to remove a misunderstanding that may perhaps arise. I want to make it very clear, and I am only doing so now because I was a party to the agreement entered into with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that the Government—and this is also the way I put it to the Leader of the Opposition and the way he accepted it—has a very clear standpoint in regard to this matter, and that the Government has no intention of deviating from that standpoint in any way. I refer to clause (e) of the agreement between the hon. Leader and myself as noted down in haste, namely—

That was contained in the agreement, and in respect of that matter the Government knows no compromise, but knows only one course, and that is that it must put an end to the reckless exploitation there has been of the political rights of the Coloured people. I want there to be no misunderstanding about the fact that the course that will at all times be adopted by the Government is precisely that.

In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition I also refer to paragraph (f), to which he referred yesterday, because in that regard too we must have no misunderstanding. He is not present here to-day, and the hon. member will therefore agree with me that in fairness to him I should protect him in that regard. Paragraph (f), of course, reads as follows—

For the information of the hon. member for Houghton, the Leader of the Opposition stated his standpoint in that regard very clearly. Then he continued—

The hon. member for Houghton need have no doubt whatsoever that that is the position. As a matter of fact, she ought to know that better than anyone else in this House. The Leader of the Opposition continued by saying—

It is on that basis that it is going to the Select Committee. On the basis that it is going to the Select Committee before Second Reading, the whole issue is open, as the hon. member for Yeoville quite rightly said.

Hon. members will recall what my standpoint was when my Vote was under discussion. Hon. members will recall what standpoint I adopted. The Select Committee will have the right to take all these relevant matters into consideration, and I say in all humility that it will be neglecting its duty if it does not take all these relevant matters into consideration. I for my part hope that what will issue from this Select Committee will be an arrangement to put an end for all time to the Coloured people’s becoming a football of certain political groups in South Africa. I believe that we on both sides of the House, whether or not we agree with each other’s solution, are anxious not to have the Coloured people used as a political football. I believe that that phase in our politics is past and that we are seeking a permanent solution to the question of the Coloured people’s representation here in the House of Assembly so as to place it on a firm basis.

I just want to say in passing that I am surprised that people who initially condemned the type of representation we have at present, who advised the Coloured people to have nothing to do with it. now want to make use of that avenue to gain seats in Parliament. Perhaps I should have done the same if the Whites had rejected me so decisively as they have rejected the Progressive Party.

Motion put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman), having supported the demand for a division, motion declared agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned last night I was about to deal with the question of beef production. I do want to say that this is certainly one of the aspects of farming which to-day cannot be over-stressed. Because we, the South African nation, are a nation of beef eaters. And that is quite plain when one considers the fact that during the year 1964-5 alone South African consumption of beef was no. less than 502.000,000 lbs. as against 181,000,000 lbs. of all the other types of meat, lamb, mutton, pork and what have you. The stabilization therefore of this industry is of vital importance, and beef production is certainly a long-term project which by virtue of its nature therefore is slow to adapt itself to the rapid changes in prices and to adapt itself to other effects such as droughts. This fact is proved by the circumstances of the cattle population at the moment. Over the years, and certainly over the last 12 years the increase in the beef population was only of the order of some 9 per cent. Over the same period the population increase of South Africa was of the order of 43 per cent. It is true indeed that production certainly kept pace therefore to a certain extent with this increase in population. But on the other hand one can only come to the conclusion that if this tendency continues, if this tendency of the cattle population in South Africa remaining static continues, we will be faced with a very serious shortage of beef in the future. That, of course, is not even considering extraneous factors which may come in and have a bearing on the topic, such as the drought we have had over the last year. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could advise us what the depletion in the cattle population was as a result only of the drought of the last year or two.

Therefore, Sir, with these shortages we get an unhealthy increase in prices, and a very real danger arises that the people will switch to other types of meat, particularly, of course, to chicken or poultry, and even fish and what have you.

I come to my main point, namely that it is most important that we have a proper marketing control for our beef. There are two factors involved here. The first one, of course, is the floor price fixation, and the second one is the control of the flow of beef to the markets. I think the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side are quite aware of the fact that the floor price as it is to-day is completely unrealistic. In fact it bears no relation to the prices in the meat industry. It is true that over the last couple of years we have had increases. There have been some nice increases. But I say that that is no criterion. Because the situation was so bad some years ago, and because there has now been an improvement which has closed this terrific gap to some extent, there is no reason for saying that now the position has been solved.

We find to-day, in this year, that the Agricultural Union recommended a floor price of 19 cents, the Board eventually submitted the price of 17 cents, and the final agreed price was only 16 cents. Then an hon. member on that side made the statement yesterday that if there had been no agreement there would have been no price. That may be the theory, but what is the practice? I say again, Sir, as I said last night, let us be grown up and let us know, because I think that we are all aware that in the end it is the Minister who says aye or nay. That is the fact of the matter. But, Sir, I want the Minister to remember that when he fixes a price—and it may be all very well now, while there is a shortage as a result of the drought and other conditions—that price at the same time, when and if there is a free supply, also becomes the maximum price. Mr. Chairman, I say that the Government’s policy is like a woman’s hemline to-day. You never know where it is going to be from one season to the next.

As I have said, the policy in regard to the beef industry is a long-term policy. In order to obtain any sort of security or any stability, a farmer must plan. In order to plan successfully he must know what is going to happen in four years time. The trade to-day requires a carcass of between 500 and 600 lbs. That is what they want. In order to get such a carcass, an animal has to be approximately three years old. To get such a carcass from an animal at that age. it must be well-bred and it must have good feeding conditions. If we want to reduce that time in any way whatsoever, we have to revert to intensive feeding. Of course, that is what we would like to do. We are all aware of the fact that the younger and the stronger they are, the better and the period in which they grow the fastest is the period during which there is the most efficient conversion of feed. But the very thing required to encourage quality prohibits this. That is the cost which is involved in feeding. We know to-day that the main ingredient of our feeds is maize. It is to-day completely uneconomic to go in for intensive feeding with the prices as they are, and the gap between the maize and meat prices being so high. We find that the price ratio to-day in the United States of America for example between meat and maize is 1 to 20.4. In South Africa the ratio is only 1 to 12.6. At that rate, it cannot be done. Beef production is to-day a capital intensive industry. What is more, Sir, the farmer is a business man. It is not like in the olden days when it was a question of hit and miss and we just carried on. [Time expired.]

I should not like to follow the pattern of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He objected very strongly to the price of fodder in comparison with that for meat. I am a sheep farmer and I have a lot to do with controlled markets. Except in the short period while the tremendous drought was prevailing, where people wanted to get rid of the surplus stock they had in order to relieve their grazing lands as far as possible, I cannot remember ever receiving floor prices for my stock. One simply does not get anything like that. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that even if there were general rains to-day, the meat-consumer would not be able to pay the prices, because there is no meat in the country. We must take the people who use our products into account. They are not all people with large salaries. If we did not have the consumer, what would the producer then do with his products?

Sir, I should like to talk about something else. I am sorry that the hon. member for East London City is not here at the moment. I must apologise, because I told him that I was going to do so. Perhaps it slipped his memory. I want to talk about the subject of the fodder bank which, year after year, is being exploited by the United Party in agricultural debates. Each year they say that the Government is neglecting its duty because it does not establish a fodder bank. My hon. friends in the United Party who are farmers all know that this Government, since it came into power, has spent hundreds of millions of rand—I almost want to say thousands of millions—on the farmers in order to effect water and soil conservation. Unfortunately all the dams are dry as a result of this terrible drought, but if our rainfall approaches anywhere near normal again, there is enough fodder in the country. Each person will then have enough fodder. Of what avail would it be if the Government were now to go and lay out 10, 20 or 30,000 morgen, perhaps even more, in order to plant lucerne or other crops, if there were no water available? We now have the case that we have to impose a restriction on the pumping of water from the Orange River. The little fodder there is must now stand and shrivel up. Is that the Government’s fault? Is that not an act of God? Now the United Party is saying that the Government has been neglectful in not ensuring that there is sufficient fodder in the country. However, something which none of them has mentioned is the far-sightedness of this Government in tackling, with tremendously great capital expenditure, the construction of the two largest dams which have ever been built here, namely the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and the Van Der Kloof Dam.

When will we have water in those dams?

That does not matter. If that hon. member had not been born he would not be sitting there now. In the meantime we will once more have normal times. We will have normal years and then the United Party will not have this opportunity, as they are doing while there is this drought of blaming one for it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to touch upon something else. I recently had a short discussion with the hon. the Minister about it. This matter arises from a resolution taken by the Woolbrokers Association. They have decided to increase brokers’ fees by 2½per cent. At my meeting the Wool Growers and Auctioneers Limited, a company, opposed the resolution taken by the co-operative society. They totally rejected it. Ultimately, to remain a member of the Woolbrokers Association, they had to enter into an agreement to the effect that the increase per bale would in future, apart from the 2½per cent commission, be 10 cents. I just want to inform the farmers of this. Perhaps they do not know about it. It brings in R30,000 for the F.C.U. It brings in R28.000 for the “Boeresaamwerk”. It brings in R20.000 for the W.G.A., according to the quantity of wool they handle. However, there is something now to which the hon. the Minister must give his attention. It is that the corporations, namely the F.C.U. and the “Boeresaamwerk”, are obtaining that full amount. They can spend it any way they please. However, the company renders the same, and in many respects better, service. According to the proportional increase of bales handled by the company and two major corporations, the W.G.A. is still coming out ahead each year. But the W.G.A. has this backlog: It must pay, on that R20,000, R7,500 in income tax. Here one has three firms; two are co-operative, the other is not. They render the same services to the farmers. Each one receives 10 cents per bale; one must surrender R7.500 in the form of taxation and the other two do not have to surrender anything. Is that right? I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s approach to this matter is, but since they are rendering the same service, I do not think it is right. The W.G.A. is simply a wool marketing organization, while we find that the F.C.U. also has consumers’ co-operatives. I just want to say that I am very much opposed to …

But that is a separate business.

But they are still there. I listened yesterday afternoon with great attention to that hon. member’s speech. We are dealing here with a firm which only handles wool: why should it be discriminated against in this way? I do not know whether this is the right place to raise this matter, and I do not know whether the hon. the Minister may tell me what amount in income tax has been paid by the wool companies in the past 10, 15 or 20 years, I do not know whether he may tell me what the co-operatives have paid, but I understand that it is very little, for if a company possesses one R2 share then it is a member of the cooperative. I want to point out again that the three firms do the same work in the interests of the wool farmer. The purpose all of them share is to render good services to the farmers. I find that in the year 1964 for example the W.G.A. paid R104.183 to the Treasury in the form of income tax; in 1957 it paid R117.000. in 1962 R80.000, and just from 1950 to 1953 it paid R222.000. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider having a proper investigation instituted into the matter, for it does not seem right to me. where one is dealing with companies and cooperatives which render the same services, that the one should be burdened so heavily in comparison with the other. [Time limit.]

During this debate we have had a repetition of previous arguments advanced under the Vote of the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. When the Opposition waxes loquacious about agricultural prices etc., they always state here that, as far as the fixing of prices of commodities which are subject to price determination is concerned, it is the Minister who pegs the prices at a certain level. During the past election the United Party made this sort of statement all over the country, and among other things they made some promises. I do not think it necessary to read it out to you, but one of their solemn promises amounts to a guarantee of fair prices to farmers. I should like to dwell briefly on the topic of four prices before replying to the hon. member’s comment regarding the question of meat. What did they mean when they said they would guarantee fair prices to the producer? Would that be fair to the stock feeder? The hon. member has just complained that maize prices are so high that it is unprofitable to produce meat if maize products are used as basic feeds. Members of the Opposition have in the past pleaded in this House for an increase in the price of maize. Prices have since been raised, and now this member who represents a stock-feeding constituency comes and complains about the high price of maize, notwithstanding the fact that the maize consumer is subsidized by this Government. In other words, this Government can do what it likes regarding these matters, but the Opposition will never be satisfied. The Government could increase the prices of commodities and subsidize the consumers price, but the Opposition would still not be satisfied. I should like to point out that the consumer is not always the city-dweller; he is to a large extent also the stock-feeder, the chicken farmer, the dairy farmer, etc. I hope that if an Opposition member rises after me he will clear up this point: When the Opposition advocate fair prices for the farmer, do they want a fair price to be paid to the cattle farmer, the poultry farmer and the diary farmer or do they want the maize producer to be paid a reasonable price? They must state clearly for whom they are making an appeal in this regard. Last year during the course of a debate I put a question to the hon. member for Newton Park, and I want to quote his unequivocal statement on that occasion (Hansard, Col. 1216). After he had placed the onus for the fixing of commodity prices on the Minister, he referred to Mr. Hudson Klerck, a member of the Dairy Industry Control Board, who, in the quotation, was dealing with dairy prices. I now want to quote to hon. members what the hon. member for Newton Park read out to me during that debate—

Mr. Chairman, in glancing at the basic prices of dairy products, I notice that there has been a gradual increase over the past four years. In other words, that member of the United Party sitting over there—(I have in the meantime established that Klerck is a member of the United Party)—made a distorted statement here regarding this matter. If a Minister were to have the right to determine the price of any commodity, without having regard to the recommendations of the commodity control board concerned, why then establish commodity control boards in terms of the Marketing Act to advise the Minister? Why then do we have the Marketing Council and the control boards if the Minister, according to the United Party, has the sole right to determine prices? The hon. member knows that that is nonsensical and I hope that he will henceforward refrain from talking such nonsense. The results in the rural electoral divisions are proof enough that the country voter has more sense than the people who disseminate pamphlets of this nature in which this type of promise is made to farmers. I want to come back again now to the statement made by the hon. member sitting there; unfortunately, I do not know which electoral division he represents. He referred to beef prices and stated that an animal has to be three years old to be suitable for marketing. His idea is unrealistic and far removed from modern trends. The tendency nowadays is to market the animals at the earliest possible age, and for that purpose fodder is needed. On the one hand they complain about the high cost of fodder and on the other hand about the low floor prices. I am glad that the hon. member made this one admission, namely, that during the past few years the floor prices have gradually increased. They were increased not only because the Minister gave his permission but because the Meat Control Board, in conjunction with the Minister and the Marketing Council, came to an agreement with the Minister. In this regard it is also unfair to state that the fixing of the floor price as such is the duty and the right of the hon. the Minister alone. Any political party, whether it be the National Party or the United Party when it was in government—but that of course is so long ago that I can scarcely remember it. I understand that the United Party did in fact at one time or another rule the country! Did the United Party, when in government, have the price of any commodity fixed exclusively by their Minister without consulting the control boards? It did happen once, but what happened to that Minister when he announced a price of his own accord? They kicked him out themselves, let alone leave it to the National Party! As regards the floor price for meat mentioned by the hon. member I should like to quote the following figures to him. He will then be forced to agree that these adjustments gradually became necessary. I need not go too far back. I want to take the figures for 1957 or 1958. At that time the price of beef was R1L87 per 100 lbs.; the following year, R12.28. then R12.05. then R11.98, then R12.64, then R12.61, then R14.00 and now it is R16.00. But the fact is that each grade, lower than grade 1 and higher than grade 1, has always been higher than the floor price. The floor price is not the price at which the product has to be sold. It is only a supporting price, and that is the price at which the Meat Control Board buys and takes into stock. If the price is above the floor price, the farmers get the benefit, and you know that for some time now beef and mutton have been selling at well above the floor price. The idea behind this floor price is simply to ensure that the price does not fall too low. Can the United Party suggest any alternative system of marketing as regards this commodity? No: they only hold negative views and we are not given the slightest amount of constructive criticism. That is why at this stage it is a matter of urgency, as it were, for us to request the Opposition to stop making this type of groundless statement; they must not place the responsibility on the Minister, because they know it is incorrect to do so. Why accuse a Minister or a political party of something for which he or it is not responsible? But hon. members opposite do this with only one purpose in mind. They are trying to win the vote of the farmers but the farmers have rejected them. [Time limit.]

I do not know whether the hon. member for Harrismith listens or understands when one talks in this House. I never made the statement that the price of mealies was too high.

You said production costs were too high.

The production cost of beef, yes. But does that include mealies only? I specifically made the statement that the gap between the price of mealies and the price of beef was too high. The hon. member merely affirmed the very thing I said here, that in fact where a carcass weighs 500 lbs. to 600 lbs. that is what is desired, but that it is desired to get as close as possible to this weight at a younger age. We must use that growth period when the conversion of feed is at its highest. But you cannot afford to do that because it is completely uneconomic at the moment to feed intensively and to prepare beef for the market under those conditions.

This question of floor prices is a serious one. Does the hon. member for a moment suggest that that must be the basic price and that if our beef is sold at 16 cents a lb. i-t will be economic? Would the farmer be able to keep his head above water if he had to sell at that price? And if we cannot do that, why do we establish a floor price? At least you want a realistic price at which it will still be economical to sell. That is why in the Wool Trade the basic price is calculated on the price at which wool can be produced economically. The same principle must hold good for the floor price of beef. I said that the meat industry was a very capital-intensive one. When we come to the investment of capital and we come to the amount of capital invested in the meat industry, and when one considers the risks, involved in it, the risks which any farmer has to cope with to-day, we see how very poor the return is on the investment. It is completely unthinkable that we still have farmers to-day who are prepared, through their love of. farming, to risk all that capital for the return they get. The matter of production, costs was raised yesterday. by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) in connection with dairying, and hon. members opposite took great exception because he quoted only one example. But he was talking about a big farm and of a farmer who knows what he is about, and not a haphazard little one but a man who produces 500 gallons of milk a day. The Minister cannot tell me that a farmer who produces 500 gallons of milk a day does not know how to arrange his affairs and cannot work out his production costs as well as any businessman can. May I quote to him the results of a survey which was made under the auspices of the Natal University and which covers beef production for Northern Natal, Zululand, the Midlands and East Griqualand? Do you know, Sir, what the return is on beef for the farmers in those areas? In Northern Natal it is 2.58 per cent on the capital investment. In Zululand it is 1.12 per cent, in the Midlands 1.87 per cent and in East Griqualand 2.48 per cent. This shows that we have gone beyond the point where we only need the Government to encourage the beef producer; in fact it has to re-establish the industry, and orderly marketing is a must under the present conditions.

We also find the situation which was mentioned just now by one hon. member, who said: What about the difference between the retail price and the wholesale price? Indeed, that is an aspect which must be investigated because as the hon. member for East London (City) mentioned the other day, how can a piece of steak cost what he quoted and yet the farmer gets 16 cents a lb. on the whole? We have had the question of permits in regulating the flow of meat to the markets. Quotas were mentioned also, but I think the Government will have to give consideration to the extension of cold storage facilities to a very great extent in order to regulate the flow to the market more evenly. To-day there is a terrific amount of meat wasted through the fact that cattle and sheep also, for that matter, are sent to abattoirs and have to wait a day or a week or two weeks before being slaughtered. That actually occurs. In some cases, as has been mentioned, nearly three weeks. And it means a fantastic loss of weight during those waiting periods. I have referred to cold storage, and you need not come along with the argument that the people will not eat frozen meat, because this can be used as a reservoir. They can still have their normal supply of. meat which need only be supplemented with cold storage meat as and when required. When cattle are sent they should be slaughtered immediately and put away or prepared for sale on the next day. Then you can avoid a lot of loss in weight.

I want to conclude by saying that South Africans have built up the industry in Rhodesia to a very, very great extent. Indeed South Africans are to-day still in charge of the schemes in Rhodesia to a very, very great extent. And, although they come from South Africa, through their Government and through the facilities that have been put at their disposal, they have a very successful scheme under which they operate. I would say to the Government: Do not be proud now. Get a tip from Rhodesia, learn what they are doing in more facets than just the agricultural industry …

Do the farmers not send representatives to the Boards?

I am not referring to other boards. We can learn from them. We can certainly put into effect very effectively what they have done in their way, a much smaller way, but certainly a very effective way.

For the past 4½ hours I have been listening attentively to speeches on this Vote, and I have come to the conclusion that the criticism that has been levelled here is a wonderful feather in the cap of the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and his Department. Because, Mr. Chairman, there has actually been no criticism on any of the major activities of the Department or on the matters that come under its control. At the moment there are 18 or 19 control schemes under the Marketing Act. There have now been references to price fixing, which is a minor point, and even there hon. members were not quite right. There has been no criticism on the actual implementation of the schemes. I could mention everything in which the Department is engaged. Some years ago I said that the Department was undertaking special economic research to induce farmers to farm on a more economic basis. In the annual report of my Department there are references to a considerable number of inquiries that have been carried out and to the extension work done in that regard. On an occasion like this one would expect the Opposition to contribute something constructive and to criticize or approve the measures taken or the policy adopted. But there was nothing of the kind. I want to say that I have now been sitting here as Minister for the past eight years, listening to debates on this Vote, and I regret to say that it has struck me that the poorest debates held in this Parliament are held on Agriculture, for the simple reason that there is never any discussion on questions of principle or on matters of policy; without any proof a bunch of allegations are made and a bunch of statements are made, and those form the basis for all the speeches made by the Opposition. I just want to mention some examples. The hon. member for Newton Park said that because the Minister and the Government had no policy for agriculture, accusations were always levelled at the farmers and excuses were sought to cover up the lack of policy on the part of the Government. Then the hon. member mentioned some matters. He said: The Minister tells the farmers to improve their management ability. Of course. Surely it is the duty of the Department of Agriculture to guide the farmers. Will the hon. member tell me that he believes that that is not correct? And allow me to say, incidentally, that as a rule hon. members on the opposite side cannot distinguish between agriculture and farmers. When they refer to agriculture or to farmers, they mean one and the same thing. When they speak of an agricultural policy, they want a policy for every individual farmer. That is quite impossible, of course. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park whether he is satisfied that the management ability of all our farmers in South Africa is 100 per cent sound? Is he convinced of that? Now it is the task of this Department to endeavour to raise the management ability of farmers to the maximum by means of research and extension work, to give them information on the best methods for running their farms. As I have said, there are some farmers who are not as efficient as they should be, but that does not mean, of course, that I am saying that the entire agricultural industry in South Africa is inefficient or that every farmer in South Africa is inefficient. But there is no doubt about it that there is a large number of farmers in this industry who could earn higher incomes if they raised their efficiency. And I can quote examples from the annual report. Hon. members should glance through it. Where economic studies were carried out in certain regions, and that also applies to the Natal region which has been mentioned, where the Department has carried out certain economic studies and where groups of farmers carried out certain studies in co-operation with the officials, and where they received guidance on how to operate more efficiently in certain fields affecting their farming, there you will see how their profit per R100 investment increased in the three or four years during which they participated in those study groups. Is it not part of the work of the Department to do those things? But now the hon. member comes along and says that the Minister claims that there are inefficient farmers, and that he is hiding behind that. No, Mr. Chairman, we are not hiding behind that. Our task is to make those people more efficient and to guide them. That is the object of the Department.

Then the hon. member said that the Minister was hiding behind “uneconomic units” every year. Because no decent prices were provided for products, said the hon. member, uneconomic units in agriculture were being used as a cover. Will the hon. member on the opposite side tell me that they are not aware of the fact that there is a large number of uneconomic farming units in South Africa? And surely it is the task of the Department to try to solve and to meet that problem. Because if one failed to do that, the people would simply lose their farms. They would all lose their farms if the Government did not step in and try to consolidate their position. The policy we follow is therefore a policy that holds in the first place that no government and no rain will keep all the farmers in the rural areas under all circumstances. But it is its policy to enable farmers to procure economic units once again by consolidating land—economic units not only in the sense of the size of the land, but also as regards their management ability and the capital investment they need. In that respect the farmer is assisted to get a reasonable period in which to redeem it eventually, and to farm on an economic basis. Surely that is also one of our functions, and that is a very important function of the State. Hon. members on the opposite side have a great deal to say about the depopulation of the rural areas. Now surely it is a function of our Department to see to it, wherever possible, that farmers are enabled to procure units on which they can make an economically independent living. But now the hon. members say that the Government and the Minister are hiding behind the fact that there are uneconomic units. No, we are not hiding behind that. Through words and actions we have proved that we are solving the problem. On various occasions hon. members have supported legislation in Parliament, supported it unanimously, with the very object of enabling us to take action in these matters. In speaking of uneconomic units, which are creating a problem, I do not mean that all the farmers and the entire agricultural industry are on an uneconomic basis, and that all of them are farming on uneconomic units. In this respect we can once again only make an analysis of the income figures obtained from our studies. Look at the report of my Department as regards the studies carried out in certain regions. I want to mention only a few, where groups of 100 and more farmers were taken and where the study was based on those groups. In the Bethal-Standerton region the nett income per R100 capital investment was 7.8 per cent in 1962, 6.9 per cent in 1963 and 10.9 per cent in 1964. I presume there has been a decrease this year, because they have been experiencing an exceptionally severe drought. We take the Frankfort-Villiers region: 7.8 per cent in 1962, 13.9 per cent in 1963 and 13.7 per cent in 1964. That is the percentage income per R100 investment. Thus you will find all the particulars in this report. Therefore not all the farmers in South Africa are being accused of farming on an uneconomic basis. But the fact remains that some of them do, and there are many of those. We cannot simply ignore their existence. We have to take note of their existence and we have to try to solve that problem in agriculture. That is why we are working along those lines.

The hon. member further said that something else that was used as a cover by the Government was to say that the farmers should be independent and that the Government should not interfere with farming matters; that they should not become State farmers. But now I want to ask the hon. member this: Is it the policy of the United Party that they should in fact become that? Is it not also the policy of the United Party that the farmer in South Africa should be an independent being? Is it not also their policy that the farmer should be an independent entrepreneur and should decide for himself whether he wants to farm or what he wants to undertake? Then why make accusations to the effect that the Minister is saying that when certain means of assistance are employed the assistance should be such that the independence of the farmer remains intact? Why make an accusation of that, as though the Government or the Minister has no policy and therefore uses that smokescreen to protect himself? We are now being accused of using such excuses because there is a lack of action on the part of the Government. I ask: What action along what lines? It is so easy for the Opposition to come along and say that there is a lack of action. But I ask, in what respect?

Surely I mentioned that.

No, the hon. member did not mention one respect. Under the current drought conditions the Government took action on every occasion to enable the farmers to consolidate their debts in the first place, to enable them to keep their stock alive by means, of State aid, and furthermore to raise their loans at lower rates of interest than the ordinary current rates of interest. Through the years we have also endeavoured unceasingly to enable a farmer who had too little land, to buy more. Now the hon. member says that those things are done because the Government wants to conceal its inaction. What inaction? Those things are simply alleged here, but no proof is advanced. Statements are simply made.

Now I want to tell the hon. members that one achieves nothing with mere statements. They did that in the election too. But one cannot convince people by means of statements only. One has to convince them by means of facts and truths. That is the only way. The hon. member said that the agricultural industry was important, and that special care should therefore be taken of the industry. Nobody would dispute such a statement. But the accusation levelled by the hon. member is that the Government does not take special care of agriculture, and that it does not render special assistance under special circumstances. Let us see what is happening. All extension work, all research carried out with regard to agriculture in South Africa, is performed free of charge by the Government, because the Government appreciates the fact that agriculture forms a very important part of our economic structure and that it is essential to provide food for the country. But the farmer gets facilities, agriculture gets facilities, loan facilities and other facilities, that no other sector of our population gets. The farmer receives protection that no other sector of our economy receives. If a farmer is on the brink of going under and has to be sold out. there is the protection of the Farmers’ Assistance Act to give him time to consolidate his position. The Government helps him. What other sector of our industry or our economy in general receives that protection? But the hon. member says that agriculture receives no protection. He comes along and says that industries receive protection, but that the Government forgets agriculture; industries are protected against outside competition; industries are protected, and then the farmer has to pay for that, but agriculture receives no protection.

Was that not the argument of the hon. member for Heilbron?

That was the argument of the hon. member for Newton Park, but if the hon. member for Heilbron said that, he was also wrong. The fact remains that the protection agriculture in South Africa enjoys in respect of the prices of its produce is total protection, not protection in the form of a duty on imported products. Nothing produced in South Africa by agriculture may be imported into our country without a permit. In other words, the farmer enjoys total protection. And yet the hon. members come along and say that the Government is not looking after agriculture, that it is protecting industries and forgetting agriculture. Sir, if hon. members want to argue about these matters, they should at least get their facts straight. I do not mind arguing with the Opposition about these matters for days on end, or explaining my attitude in this regard for days on end. But one cannot argue about unfounded statements.

But who fixes the industrial prices? Not the Government.

We have an open economy as regards industries.

Not as regards agriculture.

But there is a very important reason for that. The hon. member told the House that he had been associated with agricultural unions and agricultural organizations for so long that he had gained a great deal of experience of that kind of thing. Does he not know, then, that agriculture asked specifically that agricultural prices be fixed? In fact, agriculture did not want an open economy because its position is not the same as that of the industries, that can regulate prices. In agriculture one is dependent on seasonal values, and if one offers agricultural produce on an open market, the prices fall. Surely the hon. member knows that, or do I have to lecture to him on that too? For that reason agriculture asked specifically for the Marketing Act, in terms of which it is possible to give the farmer a guaranteed price. He is not in a position to regulate prices himself, as is done by industry. But now I want to ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to say on behalf of the Opposition that the fixing of agricultural prices, where prices are fixed for agricultural produce, should be abolished? Surely that is a simple question. The hon. member blames us for the fact that agricultural prices are fixed. Does he want to abolish that? The hon. member alleges that industry is protected by higher prices, but that the agricultural prices are fixed. Now I ask him whether he wants the prices of agricultural produce to be fixed?

But the prices must be fair.

I ask a simple question. Now the hon. member comes along with the story of fair prices. I shall come to that shortly. Hon. members on the opposite side, and to a certain extent also the hon. member for King William’s Town, said that the Minister determines the price of a product. Recommendations of the agricultural union and of the Board were quoted, and it was pointed out that the price fixed eventually was lower than that recommended by both of them. Hon. members on the opposite side are always claiming that they stand by the principles of the Marketing Act. But do they know what the principles of the Marketing Act are? Do they know, for example, what powers were granted by Parliament to the Marketing Act? It was provided, for example, that the price of a product shall not be determined by Parliament.

For that purpose Parliament delegated its powers in this regard to other people, and those people serve on a board constituted in such a way that the producers, the consumers and other interested parties are represented on it. That power is not vested in the S.A. Agricultural Union. Parliament went even further and said that the Minister shall refer the recommendation of this Board to the marketing council concerned for its recommendation. It is only after the Minister has obtained all these recommendations that he can determine the price in consultation with the Board. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he wants us to accept the recommendation of the S.A. Agricultural Union in this regard? Must we accept its recommendation as regards the price?

Hon. members on the opposite side can quite easily answer yes or no. On the one hand they claim that they stand by the Marketing Act, and on the other hand they accuse the Minister of failing in his duty if he also stands by those principles. Hon. members should say whether or not they reject the principles of the Marketing Act. They must say whether we should reject those principles and give the farmer the sole say as far as fixing his prices is concerned. If they want that, they should say so. If the hon. member wants to advocate something of that kind, he should have the courage to say so here, so that we can debate it. But now he merely makes insinuations and suggests that we are always trying to wrong the farmer by taking no notice of the recommendations of these boards. That is his insinuation, and it is an unfair insinuation to boot.

Then why is it that as soon as the Minister is involved in the determination of a price, that price is always lower than the one recommended?

But the hon. member is quite wrong. In this regard I may just refer to the maize and wheat prices. In their case the recommendations of the board were accepted unchanged, but let me tell you what the position was as regards meat. Whereas the average price throughout the year was not even R17, despite the increase in the season premiums, the recommendation of the S.A. Agricultural Union was that the price should be R19 for the first grade product concerned. The hon. member will know what I am referring to. Throughout the year the average auction price was not even R17, and then the S.A. Agricultural Union recommended that the floor price should be R19. Does the hon. member want the Minister to accept the recommendation of the S.A. Agricultural Union unquestioningly in order to make himself popular, regardless of the effect on the industry? On the other hand hon. members should remember—and there are hon. members, including the hon. member for Gardens, who have already mentioned this—that one cannot simply fix the price of a product without having regard to the prices of related products. One has to fix the prices in such a way that there will at least be a correlation between them. The hon. member himself raised this point and said that the price of maize, which should serve as a feed basis for stock, for the meat price, was not correlated with the meat prices, or vice versa. Where various products are produced, one for local consumption and another for export, and a third for the domestic market as well as the foreign market, one has to take care, when fixing the prices of those products, that one does not increase one of them to such an extent that the others cannot exist.

The hon. member spoke about meat prices. Let him just go and see how the increase in the prices of beef caused an increase in the production of poultry, and that at the expense of the beef price. Where adequate provision has been made for the domestic market, should one raise those prices so injudiciously that the product will harm itself as far as its consumption quantity is concerned? Surely one should use one’s common sense when dealing with matters such as these. It is very easy for a Minister to make himself popular by saying every time that he will accept the price demanded by the farmer. But in the end he will be crucified, because by doing so he will ruin the entire agricultural industry. One should remember that the price factor determines not only the price of the product to be sold but also the entire economic structure of agriculture—land prices, and eventually everything else. Through the price factor one may therefore undermine the entire structure of agriculture, and land agriculture in a position from which it will be impossible to save it later and place it on an equal basis with other industries. If in these times of drought we fix the farmer’s prices in such a way that it ensures that there will be no reduction in his income, it means that one will later reach a stage where those matters will have to be set right again. It has been said that where there is a shortage of a certain product, its production should be encouraged by means of higher prices, particularly in times of drought, in order to ensure that the farmer will suffer no loss in revenue. Let us take only our dairy production. In the northern provinces we had good rains during only one month of last year, namely February. The very next month our dairy production for those regions was 40 per cent higher. That shows how tremendously rapidly the production of such a product may fluctuate in one direction or the other, according to the current climatic conditions. But because the climatic conditions vary, one cannot undermine the entire structure of that industry by encouraging production to such an extent that in normal times one would be saddled with a heavy over-production which would then have to be exported. That has to be taken into account. All of us know what problems our farmers are experiencing to-day as a result of the drought, but surely all of us are hoping that matters will return to normal some time or other. I therefore say that one cannot use the price factor to maintain the farmer’s income in times of drought on a level equal to that on which it used to be. If the price factor could be used for that— and I do not think it is possible—the structure of the farming industry concerned may be undermined completely as far as the future is concerned. In times like these one must therefore necessarily take measures, other than merely price measures, in order to overcome these drought conditions. That is just what the Government is doing. It does that, on the one hand, by securing for the farmer the highest prices justifiable under the circumstances. On the other hand it renders other forms of assistance to the farmer to enable him to surmount those difficulties, without undermining the structure of that particular industry.

But now your entire argument is founded solely on drought conditions.

The hon. member is wrong. I shall try to explain it once again. I say that problems that arise as a result of droughts cannot be solved by fixing the prices of the produce concerned on such a level that the farmer who produces them can be assured of his normal income. In times of drought it is therefore necessary to take measures other than merely price measures. It will surely be of no use to the hon. member if the price of his produce were raised and he had no produce to sell. Surely that would give him no income. But if the prices of his produce were fixed on a level that would ensure that the farmer incurred no losses, the structure of that industry would be undermined. That is the point I want to make. I therefore maintain that in times like these one should take special measures. The Government is doing that already. And those measures are also of a divergent nature. The hon. member for Newton Park said that there was discrimination between one farmer and the next as regards rendering assistance. That was one of his points of criticism, namely that as regards the rendering of assistance there was discrimination between one farmer and the next and between one district and the next. But does the hon. member want this assistance which is rendered in times of drought to be undiscriminating? Should this loan scheme, should this subsidy on fodder, be made applicable to all districts in South Africa?

Yes, where the drought conditions are equally severe.

But surely you are then still discriminating. The hon. member is supposed to be opposed to discrimination. But who is to determine where the drought is most severe? Who is to determine whether drought conditions in one district are as severe as the conditions in another district?

Cannot your Department do that?

Exactly. The Department and the Minister have to do that, and in order to do so certain factors have to be taken into consideration. It may be that where one has to judge the conditions in two districts, districts situated close together, one’s decision in respect of one of them may differ from that in respect of the other. Surely such judgment is human, and therefore fallible. But one may base one’s action on certain factors. One of those factors is the number of loans taken up by farmers in a particular district, for example loans taken up for purchasing fodder. Then the nature and the duration of the drought should be taken into consideration. That is another factor. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he wants a district in which 50 per cent of the farmers have already taken up loans, to receive the same treatment as a nearby district where only 1 or 2 per cent of the farmers have taken up loans? Should both these districts qualify equally for a subsidy? The hon. member speaks of discrimination, but I say that one cannot implement such a scheme without discrimination.

Why is there no discrimination as regards the rebates on the transportation of fodder?

This rebate was introduced with the object of enabling all farmers to have fodder brought to them as cheaply as possible. Of course there are people who can pay the full railage, but this is a kind of scheme in terms of which fodder is supplied to all farmers in times of drought. The Government is prepared to make certain contributions to that end. But should the taxpayer subsidize the affluent farmer, the farmer who has a large amount of capital and who may also be earning interest on investments, in order to enable him to keep his stock alive? Is that what the hon. member wants?

But that is what you are doing.

Where?

In the case of the Railway rebates.

I ask whether the hon. member wants that without regard to the effect of the drought on the respective districts? He spoke of discrimination between the various districts. Does he want this discrimination to be done away with? Of course not, Mr. Chairman. do not believe the hon. member is so foolish that he will not agree. I do not believe he can expect the taxpayers to pay for all farmers, regardless of their means. But somebody has to decide whether or not a district qualifies for the subsidy. This decision is in the discretion of the Department and of the Minister. I concede that the Minister may make the wrong decision, but I maintain that the principle of discrimination should remain, otherwise one would eventually become hopelessly confounded as far as this scheme is concerned. I am now talking of the principle only.

Hon. members have also referred to the appointment of a commission of inquiry into agriculture. They referred to the fact that on previous occasions, when they pleaded for the appointment of such a commission, I had said that I did not believe such a commission was necessary. But I still maintain that. The commission was appointed at the instance of certain people, but I still maintain that there have already been so many inquiries into various aspects of agriculture that even if the commission merely co-ordinated the findings of all those inquiries, it would have enough information to publish a report without any further inquiry. My attitude in this regard has always been quite clear. I believe that it is more desirable to inquire into certain problems in agriculture rather than into the agricultural industry as a whole. Surely there are large sections of the agricultural industry that are experiencing no problems. In fact, there are many industries in agriculture that are strong and flourishing. Why should they be investigated? But we are now going to have this inquiry. Let us presume that commission recommended that certain regions of our country were not suitable for growing certain crops, and that farmers should therefore not be financed to grew those crops there, would hon. members on the opposite side then uphold that finding of the commission? If the commission found, for example, that a certain region was not suitable for growing maize, but was more suitable for stock farming, would hon. members on the opposite side stand by the finding of that commission if certain farmers insisted on having credit facilities for growing maize? Would they stand by the finding of the commission and say that they support the Government in that those particular areas should not be recognized for the growing of this or that product? [Interjections.] There you have the answer, Sir. He wants an inquiry, but I want to ask him what he can possibly prove. If he cannot prove that, the hon. member need not even reply to that.

Will you accept all recommendations made by this commission?

No, I am not saying I will accept all of them. I am asking the hon. member a simple question which is of basic importance to the entire economy of our agriculture. In the border areas certain products are being produced that should preferably not be produced there. Those products are produced there at a high cost. I am now asking him a simple question: If such a commission recommended that the production of that product should not be prohibited in those border regions but that the farmers producing that product should not be financed, would the hon. member support that?

That is fair.

I know it is fair, but the hon. member will not even answer a fair question.

You have now twisted the entire question.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to what the hon. member for King William’s Town said with regard to meat. The hon. member spoke about meat and meat marketing. We all know that there is a wide gap between the price received by the producer and the price the consumer has to pay That phenomenon is not peculiar to South Africa, of course. It is a phenomenon which is peculiar to the whole world, wherever the distribution channels are expensive. The hon. member pointed out that in his opinion Rhodesia had a much better scheme than ours, namely the system of a fixed floor price. The hon. member should avail himself of the first opportunity to raise the point he had advocated here with organized agriculture, which his party is always suggesting I should listen to. The attitude adopted by organized agriculture is that this scheme of theirs, with a guaranteed floor price and auctions on the hook, is the best scheme for farmers in South Africa. As the Minister I cannot amend a scheme without being requested to do so by the board.

Are you satisfied that it is the best scheme?

I cannot amend a scheme unless the board makes recommendations in that regard. Ninety per cent of the agricultural leaders, the meat producers and the cattle farmers are satisfied that it is the best scheme. But, Sir, even if it were the best scheme, it is not the cheapest scheme. It is said so frequently, with regard to stock sent to the market, that there should be some arrangement so that that stock would be supplied to the market in an orderly way. This scheme of ours has the effect that the supply to the market is irregular. The person who actually wants to sell the meat has no say about supplies to the market. The agent and the farmer supply the market. The butcher, who has to sell the meat eventually and who knows how much meat he needs at the abattoir every day, has no say in the quantity that may arrive there. As a result of that, the quantity that arrives is sometimes too large and sometimes too small. He then has to arrange his business in such a way that there is an adequate supply of meat. If there is too little, he has to bring in his own. To that end he must have refrigerated pre-auction halls in which to hold auctions, all of which involves expenses. If the producer in South Africa feels that he and the consumer are prepared to pay those extra costs to do so because by doing so they will be able to obtain the best prices for themselves and will yet be able to supply the product to the consumer at the best prices, it is not for me to say that they cannot do so. I think the time has come to give some very serious thought to this system of ours. I do not want to make a political issue of it, but I think our farmers in South Africa should begin to give some very serious thought to this scheme, whether it is not becoming very expensive to us in many respects, and whether the scheme can adapt itself to the new developments as regards the possible exportation of meat and the future market that we envisage for it, by means of pre-packed meat that has to be packed by the abattoir. I agree with that. Those problems exist. I envisage that some time or other we shall have to consider whether we should not appoint a commission to inquire into this entire scheme. Without casting any reflections on this scheme of ours, I think it is time that we should review the functioning of the scheme and its effective adaptation to new marketing methods.

We also have another new dispensation in our meat industry. You know, of course, that some years ago we appointed the Abattoir Commission to inquire into our entire abattoir system. One of our problems at present is that the facilities at some of our abattoirs are overloaded. The hon. member spoke of the congestion of stock at the markets. He spoke about the possible erection of refrigeration rooms. Our problem is not facilities that cannot be provided by the refrigeration rooms. Our problem arises from the fact that the abattoirs do not have adequate facilities to slaughter the stock. That is why we appointed the abattoirs Commission to inquire into the entire abattoir system in South Africa. It stands to reason, of course, that as long as one has a system of auctions on the hook in the controlled areas, the abattoirs serve as auction halls. There must then be adequate facilities to keep the stock there. An adequate number of carcases must be sold there to draw buyers for the carcases. One of the recommendations of the Abattoir Commission with regard to private abattoirs is a very difficult recommendation to adopt because the present scheme is not suited to private abattoirs. As I announced last year, that commission of inquiry into the abattoirs recommended that an abattoirs commission be appointed to control abattoirs. Pursuant to the report of that commission I hope to introduce legislation next year that will deal with the entire question of •control over abattoirs and that will also institute that commission. In the meanwhile, and while we are finalizing that legislation, I have decided to appoint a committee consisting of three people who may eventually also be nominated as members of the commission when the legislation is passed. This committee will go into all abattoir matters under the jurisdiction of the permanent body and will advise me. The committee will consist of Mr. W. A. Kotzenberg, previously the Deputy General Manager of the Meat Board, Mr. S. J. J. de Swardt, previously the Secretary of my Department, and Mr. L. J. Vosloo, Snr., of Bedford, previously Deputy Chairman of the Meat Board. They will act as an interim committee and will advise the Government with regard to all these matters, such as drafting the Bill, etc. They will also deal with possible applications for the establishment of new abattoirs. In the meanwhile the Meat Board undertakes to perform all the functions that they are performing at present and that will eventually devolve on the commission when legislation is introduced next year on behalf of the committee, just as they have performed them in the past. As regards all abattoir matters, I want to request that for the present and until such time as a further announcement is made in this regard, all local authorities and other interested parties should continue to negotiate with the Meat Board, which will in turn refer such matters to the commission.

I think I have now answered more or less all the questions put to me.

The only statement made by the hon. the Minister which gives us cause for gratitude was his announcement in connection with his plans to improve the meat-marketing position in South Africa. We on this side welcome the fact that the Minister said that steps would be taken in this regard. But what surprises me is the fact that the hon. the Minister did not say something about the question of fodder banks; that he did not tell us what the Government was going to do to help to combat drought conditions more effectively on a permanent basis in the future. The hon. the Minister told us that this debate had thus far actually been a feather in his cap and in that of his Department. and that the debates on agriculture in this House were usually very weak indeed. He made this statement apropos of the fact that we in the Opposition have to advance the same arguments every year. But unfortunately it is a fact that the problems of the farmer in South Africa remain the same every year. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to solve the problems which we put to him, he will hear a different type of debate on agricultural matters in this House next year.

But then you must say something positive.

The hon. the Minister has also told us what he cannot do in connection with the determination of prices. He said that the prices of agricultural produce should be correlated with the prices of other products.

Should they not be?

In particular he referred to what the hon. member for King William’s Town had said in connection with meat prices and the fact that the farmer could not afford maize because the price was so high.

Where did the Minister say that?

We have already told the hon. the Minister that we feel that the farmer should get a reasonable and fair price for his produce, and if it is necessary to support that price by means of a subsidy, the money should come from the pockets of the taxpayers.

But we are doing that, are we not?

The hon. the Minister says that he is already doing it, but he knows that he is not doing it to the required extent.

Who is to determine what that extent is?

During the past season an increase in the price of maize was granted, but the cattle farmer, the poultry farmer, the sheep farmer and the dairy farmer who have to buy that maize so as to be able to produce their products, have to pay the increased price. Was the price of maize reduced for them? Of course there was no reduction in price in their case. In spite of the fact that the Minister increased the subsidies, we find that the production costs of these producers increased as a result of the fact that they had to pay far more for maize this year. Why? It is quite impossible for the Government to devise some plan to aid those people? I feel compelled to plead with the hon. the Minister once again for an agricultural planning board in South Africa. The Minister says that in fixing prices he has to bear in mind the fact that when we have a normal year again we shall be faced with even greater problems. That is why I made the interjection: “If we have a normal year then, according to you, we are going to be faced with still greater problems.” It is a fact that we shall be found with greater problems. We are going to have the problem of surpluses, but why is it impossible to plan in such a way that the farmer in South Africa will always be assured of a fair price, both in time of scarcity and in time of surpluses?

We already have the Marketing Council and 20 control boards as well as the S.A. Agricultural Union. How many more boards do you want?

The hon. the Minister has an Agricultural Advisory Board

And a Marketing Council and 20 control boards.

Is it not possible to convert the Agricultural Advisory Board into an agricultural planning board?

What else is it?

The Agricultural Advisory Board is not a planning board and I shall tell the hon. the Deputy Minister why I say this. The Agricultural Advisory Board has been in existence since 1920, but a year or so ago the Minister extended its functions. Mr. Chairman, let me read to you what the Agricultural Advisory Board is doing—

Of course.

I agree wholeheartedly—

How can the Agricultural Advisory Board discuss the principle of subsidies and the principle of prices without referring to specific prices or specific subsidies in relation to specific products? The hon. the Minister has muzzled the Agricultural Advisory Board: he may as well have no Board at all. But he could convert this Agricultural Advisory Board into a proper agricultural planning board.

What will be the functions of that board?

We on this side are not the only ones to have asked for such a planning board in the past. Some of the provincial agricultural unions have also advocated the establishment of such an agricultural planning board. I shall tell the hon. the Deputy Minister what its function could be. Its function could be to advise not only the Minister’s Department but also the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and to devise plans in the technical field as well as in the economic field.

Do you not know that the Advisory Board advises both departments?

Yes, I know that, but I have already said that it can be converted into a planning board. The hon. the Minister said that it might perhaps be necessary to have the meat schemes in South Africa investigated. He wondered whether these schemes were not too expensive for us. If he had a planning board, this could be one of the first matters it could investigate.

But the Marketing Council and the Meat Board can do it themselves.

I think one of the main tasks with which a planning board of this nature could keep itself occupied would be, for example, to determine the future consumption of meat in South Africa; to determine future production and to seek solutions to the problems of shortages and surpluses.

That is already being done. What do the control boards do?

The hon. the Minister says that this is already being done, but we have shortages this year and will have surpluses again.

course we shall. Do you want to tell me that a planning board can predict five years in advance that we are going to have a drought and that we are going to have shortages?

No. but if the hon. the Minister had a planning board we would not have a repetition of the sort of thing that happened in the past when the farmers of South Africa were told to plough out their lucerne at a time when we needed lucerne very badly indeed; if we had an agricultural planning board we would not have to watch nearly all the maize we have being exported, and then have to import maize again. If we had an agricultural planning board we would perhaps not find ourselves in the position in which we are to-day where we have to import vast quantities of butter and cheese. [Time limit.]

It is not my duty as a backbencher to attack the Opposition, as I should like very much to do. Rather I am inclined to-day to thank them, particularly the hon. member for Newton Park and more specifically the hon. member for Durban (Point) because the Opposition does not know how tremendously I have been helped during the recent election by just those kind of arguments which we have heard here from them this afternoon. The hon. member for Durban (Point) was the official Opposition speaker on agricultural matters in the Transvaal Highveld. He went about from place to place and referred, inter alia, to the price of mealies and said to the farmers that they should ask that Government to announce the price of mealies before the election because only then would they obtain a decent price, and he said that in areas—it so happened that he did not know this—in milk-producing areas. It cost him a large number of votes. It was pleasant for me as representative of this side of the House to learn from the responsible bodies that the price would be announced at the normal time and that it would not be linked to an election. It gave me a feeling of pleasure to be a member of a party which is honest. Nine days after the election the price was announced, together with an increase of 14 per cent. I have continually called to mind the meetings held by the hon. member for Durban (Point), two of which I attended, and I realized that he had done us a favour because the farmers had seen right through him.

To do that they would have needed a pair of binoculars.

I feel that with this kind of talk about unrealistic agricultural prices the Opposition is doing our farmers a disservice. "The Opposition talks, about the depopulation of the rural areas, and there is no better way to depopulate the rural areas than to plead for unrealistic prices for agricultural products. The small farmer who must also have his place in the sun is bought out by the old-established and strong men and land prices soar. We must take all these things into consideration when we talk irresponsibly here about higher agricultural produce prices. I would rather have a good average price than an unrealistic price. Mr. Chairman, the Opposition has in this debate tried to exploit the drought, which no Government could have foreseen. We know that this drought has brought many farmers to their knees but fortunately even those people see through the Opposition’s plans. But enough about that. There is another matter which I just want to touch on briefly and that is the idea the consumer public have in their heads that the high prices which they have to pay for agricultural products go into the farmer’s pocket. To mention only one example, the consumer must for example pay R1 for a box of tomatoes. They forget that the farmer has received only 50c for the box. The rare consumer who is aware of the true facts of the situation asks from time to time why we do not do anything about this matter? Mr. Chairman, it is the farmer’s duty to produce the commodity and deliver it at the market. That also applies to meat, vegetables and fruit. The urban-dweller is inclined to be somewhat easy-going. We cannot expect 20,000 or 30,000 housewives, in a big city like Johannesburg or Cape Town, to go to market, but the consumers can on their part also do something to organize themselves. The farmers have already organized themselves in many directions by purchasing co-operatively, and the urban-dweller can also devise a plan for purchasing co-operatively, but he must realize that he is easy-going and that he wants the product delivered to his front doorstep by the hawker. In every third street there must be a butcher-shop; the housewife does not want to walk further than that. The profit margin of all these butcher-shops is not up to much because their overhead costs are tremendously high. That is the position throughout the world and not only in our country. I am just mentioning these few points so that the urban-dwellers can realize that the farmer does not receive those high prices and so that they as city-dwellers can organize themselves. One finds that very few butchers and very few hawkers really become rich. If there were so much money to be had in the selling of tomatoes from house to house then I think many of us would have done it ourselves, but there is not much money in that. What I want is that we should see these matters in the right perspective. The matter has two sides. I just wanted to touch upon it lightly here.

Then I just want to make this last statement. There is an idea abroad that produce prices have increased tremendously throughout. It was mentioned recently that a tremendous increase had taken place throughout in regard to all produce prices. I just want to dwell for a moment on the canning industry and refer more specifically to the fruit and vegetable farmer in the Western Cape. Mr. Chairman, what is happening here in the Western Cape is for me a model of efficient agricultural methods. The fruit and vegetable farmers in the Western Cape have over the past ten years, and that notwithstanding a decrease in prices in many cases, succeeded in keeping their heads above water by applying the correct cultivation methods, the correct spraying, and the correct fertilization. They have pushed up their production per morgen with the result that they are still surviving despite the lower prices. These products are not controlled. The price of canning products is subject to the price of tin, which has increased; it is subject to the price of sugar, the price of transportation, and the price of the carton in which it comes. The price of these items and the distribution costs have all increased, and the tendency has been to increase production per morgen in order to let the ultimate price remain unchanged. This is for me a very fine example of efficient agricultural methods. In 1956, ten years ago, a farmer in the Western Province received R65 per ton for his pears; this year, in 1966, he is receiving R51 per ton. For red apricots he received R54 per ton; this year he is receiving R42 per ton. For guavas he received R35 per ton ten years ago; to-day he is receiving R25 per ton from the canning industry. For tomatoes he received R20 per ton and this year, ten years later, he is still receiving R20 per ton. By farming efficiently, these people have remained on their feet and have been successful.

I should like to reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Newton Park. He recommended to the hon. the Minister for Agricultural Economics and Marketing that where we to-day have an Agricultural Advisory Board, an agricultural planning board should rather be brought into being. He then reproached the Government and said that if there had been such an agricultural planning board we would not now have had to be importing mealies. Does the hon. member know so little about planning for the future that he does not know that a Joseph’s policy of 7,000,000 bags of mealies is being followed? Could the Agricultural Advisory Board and the hon. the Minister have foretold that we were going to experience this unprecedented drought? The hon. member also referred to lucerne which had been ploughed under and I do not want to go into that now, but I just want to emphasize and once more bring it to the attention of the hon. member that this Agricultural Advisory Board has access to both Departments of Agriculture. The Board can get all the information they need from those Departments. If the Board feels that the farmer is being done an injustice then they can obtain the necessary particulars from the Department and submit their proposals to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing or to the hon. the Minister for Agricultural Technical Services, or to any other Minister, and make recommendations. I want to tell the hon. member that the Ministers have in most cases in the past accepted the recommendations of the Agricultural Advisory Board, such has happened for example in the case of the drought crop scheme. Many of the recommendations made by the Agricultural Advisory Board have been accepted by the hon. the Minister. Mr. Chairman, if the farmers of South Africa could be present here to listen to the arguments of the representatives of agriculture in the United Party, then I think they would clutch their hands to their heads. All that we have heard in this debate were the same old stories from the United Party side which we heard in the recent election campaign. According to the Volksblad of 28th February, 1966, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is reported to have said at Middelburg in the Transvaal: “The farmer is in trouble; what is wrong with the Nationalist Party?” Just call to mind how the former member for Drakensberg, of blessed memory, carried on here and said that if it had not been for the S.A. Agricultural Union and for her and the other farmers who had furnished guidance to the cattle farmers, they would all have come to grief.

I do not want to waste my time any further on this topic; I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that the farmers are grateful for the assistance which they have obtained during these abnormal drought conditions which have been prevailing in recent years, drought conditions unparalleled in living memory over the past 66 years. The farmers are extremely appreciative of the assistance which they have received. I can tell the hon. the Minister that in my constituency the farmers are satisfied with the newly announced price. I remain in touch with the farmers in my constituency and I can assure the hon. the Minister that they are satisfied, provided they have a crop, and I now come to the request which I want to make to the hon. the Minister. The farmer takes a risk when he invests his capital in the land, in the first place to his own advantage in order to make a living from the land, but in the second place, to feed the people of South Africa. The farmer never knows whether he is going to get his money back or whether he is going to make a profit, and he runs that risk alone. That is why organized agriculture, the Agricultural Advisory Board and members on this side of the House have pleaded over the past few years with the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing to go into the possibility of establishing a crop insurance scheme so that I as farmer who has invested my capital in the land will not have to run such a great risk. The hon. the Minister accepted the principle last year and he has referred this matter to the Agricultural Advisory Board and to his Department with the instructions that this entire matter be investigated. A mission has been sent to the United States of America, and the committee which was appointed at that time is now engaged on working out a scheme. Can the hon. the Minister tell this Committee whether an acceptable scheme has as yet been drawn up, when the pilot scheme will be launched, and more or less how the scheme will work? In the second place I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that there is another co-operative insurance company, namely the Farmer’s Hail Insurance Company, which has its head offices at Ficksburg, which is already launching such a crop insurance scheme.

I think the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that the company is well provided with capital and that they undertake, this year already, to include 150 mealie farmers in the first scheme. I, personally, have already paid my premium. The premium is 12 per cent, but this company, which, as I have said, is well provided with capital, has at this stage undertaken this and they do not have any re-insurance. They are relying on whatever reserve capital they have. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister something. I know that they are pleading for the State to undertake the reinsurance in the form of a guarantee for a certain amount of money. I do not expect the hon. the Minister to furnish me with a reply to this matter at this stage. All that I should like to know is whether the hon. the Minister can tell this House how soon he thinks there will be finality, what scheme will be accepted, and how soon it will be put into operation.

I must also point out that the farmers are grateful, not only for all the assistance which they have obtained in the past, but also for the new assistance which is being voted in these Estimates. I also want to point out that the consumer is grateful for the tremendous subsidies Where I as a farmer am now receiving 29c more per bag for my wheat, and so much more for my mealies, the State has now once more subsidized the consumer in order by so doing not to increase his bread prices. I think the subsidy is in the region of R29,000,000 and that the subsidy on the consumption of mealies has been doubled, from R10,000,000 to R20,000,000. That proves that this Government is a people’s Government which looks after the interests of each section of the population and not only of one section. That is why I want to conclude by once again thanking the Government and the hon. the Minister for the way in which the farmers have been helped in this state of emergency.

There is one thing that bothers me: There is an official Opposition and not one of them has, in a single speech, expressed one word of appreciation for the assistance which the farmers have received. They do not know the words “thank you” at all, and I think they ought to feel ashamed of themselves. Surely there must be appreciation? The Opposition must say that they are glad that the hon. the Minister has done this or that, and then it is their duty where a good measure has been introduced, to tell the hon. the Minister that he should add this or that. But they do not know the words “thank you” at all, and I am not surprised that the farmers of South Africa have rejected them and have sent them packing from at least two rural constituencies. [Time limit.]

In the first place I want to associate myself with the previous speaker and express my thanks to the Government and the Minister in particular for the assistance they have made available in the drought-stricken areas to our farmers who have been sorely tried. I also want to express my thanks to the Government which is trying to keep itself informed as to the real position of the farmers, not only for the sake of the farmers as such, but also for the sake of agriculture as an important sector of our economy. I want to refer to the Commission of Inquiry into Agricultural Matters. I hope that farmers will come forward with stimulating and realistic ideas, so that we may really try to determine what the basic problems are. I think we are inclined to generalize too easily and do not think enough. I want to express my thanks for the appointment of that Commission. A commission has also been appointed to inquire into co-operative matters, and there was a departmental study group which inquired into agricultural credit. I am mentioning a number of these things to show how this Government is trying to determine what the problems are.

Having expressed my thanks, I want to refer to statements recently made in the Press in regard to agriculture in this country. I think we must take cognisance of them. The first statement which was made, was that agriculture did not have its share in the relative prosperity of the country in the past years. The second statement is that where the investment in agriculture is virtually twice that of mining and of industry, the earnings out of agriculture is only approximately one third of the earnings of those industries. The third one is the statement by an international economist that Russia can never compete with America economically, and consequently politically, because its agriculture is not on a sound basis. I just want to analyse these three important statements briefly and ask whether they are true.

In trying to analyse them, I arrive at the conclusion that all three of those statements are in fact true. If they are true, are they a cause of concern to us? Should it be a matter of concern to us if agriculture is relatively speaking so badly off? My considered opinion is that this matter should definitely cause us concern, not only for the sake of the farmer and the socio-economic problems, but also for the sake of our prosperity and of a balanced economy in this country in general. The reasons for our having to concern ourselves about that are, in the first place, that any modern state which wants to lay claim to a balanced economy should at least have the assurance that its agriculture is producing food for its population; secondly, that raw materials for its industries are being produced, and thirdly, an important point affecting South Africa in particular is the fact that mining, and in particular the gold mines, will eventually cease to exist, but that agriculture will continue to do so, and as an industry its development must run parallel to that of the other industries. Only then can we rely on a sound economy in this country. For that reason it is essential for us to analyse all these factors and to take cognisance of the problems.

I want to go further by saying that since we have in the Estimates an amount of R255,000,000 for defence this year, we should also consider whether it is not necessary to spend even more on stabilizing agriculture, because we cannot merely make provision for weapons for defending ourselves if our economy is not sound and if we cannot rely on food production for our population and raw materials for our industries. There are a number of factors compelling me to say that we should take cognisance of agriculture, and once we have done that, what do we do then? Then we go to agriculture and find that it has problems, and we must make a diagnosis and ask why it does have that problem. In the first place I want to say that agriculture in South Africa is one of the most risky industries in the world. Basically that is our major problem. I may say that I studied a little agricultural economy 25 years ago and I have already forgotten a great deal, but I remembered one thing, and that is a statement which was made in a book on agricultural economy, a statement to which the professor drew out particular attention. The author said—

If that is true for England and America, it is much more so here. The risk our farmers have been running with the drought in the past years—and I hear that the loss of foreign exchange for agricultural export products alone was approximately R20,000,000 in the past year—was a loss for the farmer who produced those products, but that is not the only loss the farmers sustained. Not only were those farmers sorely tried as people who were trying to go ahead, and not only did they find that their income was drying up, but the drought also mercilessly ate away the capital they had built up over the years. I mention these points because I believe that the State should generally see to it that farmers are assisted and that these losses which were caused by circumstances beyond our control are not only the responsibility of the farmer, but also that of the community as a whole and of the State. I feel that it is necessary that the State should perhaps bargain on doing even more than has already been done.

To proceed. In dealing with the risks in agriculture I mentioned the drought, but we must also analyse the production factors in agriculture. The first is climate and soil. The climate plays an important role here. Then there are the entrepreneur and the labour he needs. A great deal of criticism has been expressed, but, although we can find fault with a certain percentage of our farmers, I want to say that in my opinion our farmers in this country are not worse, on an average, than the farmers of any other country in the world, nor are they worse than the ordinary trader or industrialist. I think they are as well-equipped. The fault can therefore not be found there. The next thing which is necessary for production is capital, and I find that we are too conservative and have perhaps not adapted ourselves to the circumstances, the risky circumstances of agriculture in this country, as far as capital provision is concerned. But production is not the farmer’s only risk; there is also a marketing risk, and here I want to express my thanks again that the risk run by the farmer as regards marketing has to a large extent been checked through the Marketing Act and the Marketing Boards. Our co-operative societies also rendered a great service, but I nevertheless want to express the opinion that we are perhaps too conservative in our approach as regards marketing.

These are in brief the problems of the farmer, and if I may now express a few ideas on how we may solve them, I can say in the first place that we cannot do anything about the climate of South Africa. We can in fact alleviate the problem a great deal by providing water and by means of processing practices and scientific methods, but then we must go further and we come to the next factor, the entrepreneur, the farmer himself. We can also improve the position by guiding him as far as possible and thus rendering a great service. To my mind financing should receive attention and in our approach to agriculture we must make provision for this sort of disaster which hits the farmer so that we may not reach a stage where we shall be trying to maintain a sound economy by means of patch-work. [Time limit.]

It is my privilege this afternoon to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Nelspruit on his first speech in this House. I congratulate him on the very confident manner in which he delivered his speech and I must say that he displayed a very sound knowledge of his subject. From the nature of the matter, I cannot wish him a long career in this House, but I wish him a very successful career. I will be glad if the hon. member will excuse me if I do not follow up the particular theme he developed, but he did raise one matter of interest to me. He pointed out that it was the agricultural sector which was responsible for seeing that there is sufficient food to feed the nation. I want to follow up that theme to a certain extent in that I want to focus attention particularly on the dairy industry.

I want to discuss mainly the problem of the insecurity of the dairy farmer in South Africa. When one comes to consider the vital and important role the dairy industry plays not only in the nutrition of our people but also in the health of the nation, I believe that at present there is a very urgent need for a thorough investigation to be made into the economic position of the dairy farmer. If one takes into account the many environmental problems and the economic problems the dairy farmer in particular is faced with, I think it is a wonder that there is anyone at all engaged in dairy farming. How often, when we gather together as farmers at a congress or a farmers’ meeting, do we not hear farmers saying how glad they are that they have given up their dairy farming ventures? This happens far too often, and it does not happen only to people who farmed inefficiently; it happens time and again on the part of people who displayed great efficiency in their farming ventures. They have simply failed for one reason, because the margin between the cost of production and the prices they received for their products is far too small.

I am not suggesting for a moment that the Department of Agriculture has not done a great deal in respect of research in regard to the technical side of the dairy industry. In fact, I believe it is only right that we should pay tribute to what has been done in this particular field, but at the same time I believe there is still a very pressing need for the State to carry out a full-scale investigation into the whole industry and to take the necessary steps to place this industry on a sound economic basis. This may involve paying subsidies, and subsidies to the consumer are very important, but above all it may involve us in paying bonuses to encourage more efficient production. I feel that in our approach to farming very often we are prepared to encourage bad farming through our system of subsidies that we have to-day. Too often the good farmer is overlooked and I feel that in this particular field of the dairy industry, through adequate systems of bonuses, we could very well assist the man who is making an efficient attempt to produce high quality dairy products. There may well be an urgent need to investigate how best to make use of the 200,000,000 gallons of skimmed milk that go waste every year on those farms that produce cream. If we take all that skimmed milk and use it properly, it can prevent malnutrition amongst 1,000,000 people. My plea this afternoon is really more specifically directed at the needs of the bona fide dairy farmer. I am referring to that farmer who, through thick and thin, continues to produce a regular supply of dairy products to our consumers all the year round, irrespective of whether it is winter or summer, or whether there is drought or favourable conditions, and irrespective of whether prices are high or low. In other words, I am referring to the dairy farmer who constitutes the backbone of the dairy industry in this country. The other day, in a debate in this House, people were trying to explain what their interpretation of “patriotism” really means. My interpretation of “patriotism” is one of these dairy farmers who does not study the cost but goes on producing butter, milk and cream all the year round despite all the difficulties he has to face.

There are many ways of approaching this matter, but there is one point I am very certain about, and that is that ways and means must be found to bring more security and permanence to these regular producers of dairy products. In this regard there can only be one approach to the matter, and that is to ensure that these permanent producers get a satisfactory price all the year round for their products. They must know months ahead what they are going to get. They must know that the price they are getting is adjusted to the economics of production ruling at that time, which is not the case to-day. Those of us who are in the dairy industry will realize that often the price we receive for our products does not cover the cost of production.

I just want to point out a simple case. I am not an economist, but if we take it this way it will be clear. If you have a good dairy cow producing an average amount of 2 lbs. of butter-fat a day, and the present price of butterfat is 48 cents a lb., it gives you a gross income from that cow of 96 cents. We all know that at present a bale of lucerne costs 100 cents, and I think all farmers will know what a bale of lucerne will look like after a cow has had a go at it for 24 hours. There will be nothing left of it. In other words, I am proving that the cost of feeding the cow is more than the producer is getting for his product. Someone suggests that one should go in for Jerseys who do not eat so much, but they also do not produce so much. In this country at present there are two kinds of producers. There is the permanent producer I have been talking about, and then there is a second group which I call the “fair weather producers”. They appear just like mushrooms as soon as the first rains have fallen. It is this second group which causes the greatest problems in the dairy industry. Many of the problems of poor quality and fluctuating output can be traced directly to this latter group. It is this group, too, which is chiefly responsible for flooding the market and causing a sharp drop in prices. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Walmer made a stirring plea for the interests of the dairy farmers. The arguments he used may just as well be used to make a stirring plea for any other sector of agriculture. At any rate, he said a few interesting things to which I want to refer. In the area with which I am familiar it strikes me as being peculiar that, if things are going so badly for the dairy farmer, the rents of farms which have a milk quota for supplying fresh milk are so fantastically high that one cannot reach them. If that is proof that things are not going well for the farmers, then I do not know.

But the hon. member also said something else which interested me. He said that assistance should only be granted to those farmers who deserve assistance, who have proved that they can farm. He also said that subsidies and bonuses should only be granted to farmers who can really produce economically. There, I think, he said a very sensible thing, and to a certain extent one can agree with him on that. But as regards the prices of dairy products, we know that dairy products have fixed prices, and if I remember correctly, I saw a report of the S.A. Agricultural Union in which they claimed that the income from farm produce with fixed prices was much more stable than that of products of which the prices were not subject to control. In that respect I think that the dairy industry is still on a better basis than that sector of agriculture which does not have price control.

But the hon. member for Newton Park also said a few things in regard to which I want to make a few observations. All the hon. members on the other side repeatedly referred to fodder banks. It is not quite clear to me what they actually mean by a fodder bank. If what they mean is that we should have a fodder bank for concentrates—it is not clear to me whether they are talking about concentrates or about roughage.

As far as concentrates are concerned, there are people who are looking after that aspect.

Who is looking after that? The Government is looking after that. The hon. member for Bethlehem told us about the Joseph policy, and I want to challenge hon. members on the other side to say that in the protracted drought we have been experiencing there has ever been a period in which there was a shortage of concentrates. The concentrates are there and there is no shortage in that regard. As far as roughage is concerned, we have something about which we can argue a great deal. To me the question is still whether it is worthwhile to establish a fodder bank in a region of the country where the cost of transport to another point in the country is much more than the value of that fodder. We can argue about this, but I am quite satisfied that adequate provision has been made for concentrates.

The hon. member for Newton Park also spoke about the correlation of prices. He referred to the increase in the price of maize and he wanted to know how it was adjusted to the production costs of the other agricultural products. I should like to ask the following: To what extent has the price for the producer been increased as a result of the increase in the producer’s price for maize? You will discover that the increase in the price for the producer has been minimal. The Government is paying a subsidy of 71 to 73 per cent on yellow maize in order to keep the price of that product as low as possible for the consumer. On the contrary, it has this effect, namely that it pays the producer better at present to sell all his maize and to purchase maize for his own use. I see the hon. member for Mooi River nodding his head in agreement. That is what the Government is doing to keep the production costs of certain commodities low. But we must accept that we have problems in the sphere of agriculture, but to say that those problems should exclusively be laid at the door of the Government and the Minister, is in my opinion a very irresponsible statement. We must accept that the great number of problems we have at present are a result of the protracted drought. But if the Government wants to shake off its problems for the very reason that there is a protracted drought, it will also be unwise and irresponsible. That is why we should preferably be constructive in our thinking. We should consider whether this drought has not exposed certain weaknesses in our approach to the agricultural industry or certain weaknesses in our agricultural policy. We must be constructive and try to determine that. As far as that is concerned, the hon. Opposition could have been a great help to the Minister, but in this respect they have, to my mind, fallen far short of the mark.

You yourself are not satisfied with the solutions to certain problems, either. Why then do you also fail to make any suggestions?

I did not say that I was satisfied with certain solutions. I mentioned what the Government had already done and at a later stage I shall elaborate further on that. At the moment I am pointing out that it is desirable that we should rather be constructive. It is a fact that we all know and accept that the Government is far ahead of the Opposition as far as its vision and approach to our country’s problems are concerned. The Government realizes only too well that, as far as this protracted drought is concerned, we cannot only think in terms of assisting the farmer, but we shall also have to think in terms of rebuilding our country’s agriculture. Certain steps have already been taken in this direction, such as the Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure Act which was passed. That is one of the steps in the direction of rebuilding our agriculture, once we have had sufficient rains again and conditions return to normal. Our plea is that the Government should approach the rebuilding of our agriculture from an economic point of view. In the past our approach to our farming problems was more in the nature of a technical one. Now it is necessary for us to strike a balance between the approach from the technical angle and the approach from the economic angle. A great deal of progress has already been made in this respect, of course. On the basis of the report of his Department, the Minister has already shown what progress has been made as regards the provision of economic guidance to farmers. [Time limit.]

For several reasons this session of Parliament will be known as an historic session in years to come. I do not want to go into all those reasons, but I only want to confine myself to agriculture. My contention is that even as regards agriculture this session will be known as an historic session in years to come, since on this occasion we switched over from the old agricultural dispensation to the new one. In addition to that legislation was passed during this session in terms of which new possibilities and new developments are noticeable on the horizon. As regards the old dispensation, we repealed certain legislation during this session—in this regard I am thinking of Act No. 12 of 1912, in particular, in terms of which agriculture was organized in accordance with the ability of the State to handle it. On no fewer than 18 different occasions in the years between 1912 and 1956, amendments were effected to this legislation with the purpose of adapting that legislation to the requirements of each particular period. This had the effect that the legislation in regard to agriculture was to a large extent rewritten and placed on a new basis. But before we bid our last farewell to this legislation which has now been repealed, I want to pause briefly at the work done under that legislation. In the annual report of the Department of Lands for the financial years ended 31st March, 1962, and 31st March, 1963, you will find a summary of the steps taken under that legislation. It states—

This is followed by a statement in which further particulars are given of the manner in which these allotments were made. The summary at the end of the column shows that the total number of holdings allotted in terms of the provisions of the Land Settlement Act, was 21,608, as I have already said. The total area of those allotments was 17,482,113 morgen and the total value R73,635,318. Since we are taking leave at this stage of a department which was, it is fitting that we should pay homage to all of those who rendered South Africa’s agriculture a service under that legislation. Here I am thinking in particular of all the Ministers who were in charge of these matters over the years, and of the officials of the Department as well as the members of the Land Boards who made it their lifework to see to the welfare of our farmers with the aid of that legislation. We realize of course that certain shortcomings were exposed gradually, shortcomings which necessitated the drafting of new legislation. In our assessment of the old legislation, we must bear in mind that that legislation was in force during a period when agriculture in South Africa experienced particularly hard times. In that period we experienced various wars as well as several depressions, pests, plagues, and so forth. Taking into account all of these difficulties, it is all the more remarkable that we could still do so much good for agriculture. But in my opinion that phase of our agricultural development is now past.

Where we are to-day performing a post mortem on that legislation before it is buried for all time, I want to express the wish that we shall at the same time bury the terminology coupled to that legislation. Let me refer briefly to the following. There were terms such as the “Nederzettingswet”. Apart from the fact that the spelling is not even Afrikaans, the word “nedersetting” (settlement) has also undergone a change in meaning. I went to the library to look up the exact meaning of the word “nedersetting”. It pertains to the concentration of people in one area or to a colony. I do not think that our settlements, as we know them in these modern times, can be described as a colony or a concentration of people. I am also thinking of the Farmers’ Assistance Act and the State Advances Act which have been repealed, and of boards of aid, probationary lessees, settlers, and so forth. I trust that we shall also store away this terminology once and for all now that we are entering a new dispensation.

On the basis of the statements made by the hon. the Minister in this House at the time of the discussion of the legislation in regard to agricultural credit and land tenure, we were given a very clear indication as to what the hon. the Minister’s policy would be. I am convinced that the agricultural sector will be justified in drawing certain conclusions in regard to the manner in which this legislation will be implemented in the future. Very great hopes are cherished of this legislation, and it is expected that we shall be able to surmount with a great deal of ease many of the problems we inherited from the old dispensation. I think that it is fitting that we should pay homage here not only to the Minister, but also to the officials of the Department, and in particular to the Secretary for the Department, Mr. Sevenster. To a large extent he was concerned personally with the drafting of this legislation, a task in which his experience of the past stood him in very good stead.

I said that we were entitled to drawing certain conclusions. What we find encouraging is that this legislation still contains that rehabilitation idea which we also had under the old legislation. That is of great importance. When somebody approaches the Government for assistance, assistance which will enable him to establish himself as an agriculturist, the process of economic rehabilitation has to be set in motion. Provision has now been made for economic financing of a continuous nature. Financing under the old dispensation was not always economic financing and that is why we are grateful that it will in fact be the case under the new legislation. But what we find particularly striking, is that under the new legislation the State will go out of its way to accelerate the emancipation of a farmer. I say that because under the old system such a farmer was in many respects nothing but a “bywoner” of the State. In future a person placed on land with State aid, will be emancipated as quickly as possible so that he may be regarded as a fullfledged farmer and may therefore have an equal share in all the privileges connected with agriculture.

This legislation introduces a Land Tenure and Agricultural Credit Board. To that the existing Land Bank Board should still be added. We believe that these boards will consist of experts and that their activities will have a beneficial effect on the stabilizing of land prices. If these three boards adhere strictly to the standing norm, we believe that they will act in the interests of the agricultural industry. When land prices are mentioned, produce prices are also implicated. That is why we believe that a stabilizing effect on the prices of our agricultural products will also be noticeable. In this new dispensation therefore we see a particularly realistic approach to modern agricultural practices. Accordingly we anticipate that the new legislation will do justice to these modern practices which are noticeable everywhere in our agricultural sector. It amounts to this, namely that it will be the endeavour of this Department to effect the greatest possible production within the shortest possible time, and that any farmer to whom assistance is granted under this legislation will be able to get the optimum production from his land as soon as possible. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, before I go further I want to add to the congratulations conveyed by the hon. member for Walmer to the hon. member for Nelspruit, who is unfortunately not here, on his extremely good address here this afternoon which, I believe, was his maiden speech in this House. I wish to say that the thoughts which he expressed show that we can expect a very good contribution from the hon. member in future.

I am sure that the hon. member for Potgietersrus will excuse me if I do not follow on that line of thought which he has started, but I want to get back to the line introduced this afternoon by the hon. member for Walmer, namely the dairy farmer and the milk producer in particular. I want to try and follow on where I left off yesterday afternoon when time ran out.

Now, Sir, it appears from my copy of Hansard that I misled the hon. the Minister. The figures which I quoted are given by the Natal and East Griqualand Fresh Milk Producers’ Union as a fair average of production costs in that area amongst its members. I gave the production costs for the 1965 year as 29.01 cents per gallon, and I must point out that these production costs for the year 1966 have increased to 31.10 cents, and that is one of the aspects that I want to discuss this afternoon.

A few years ago my constituency produced nearly all the fresh milk that was required in Durban. This was within a 50-mile radius of Durban. To-day, however, that area produces only a fraction of the fresh milk requirements of Durban. Milk for Durban is coming from as far away as Matatiele, which is 170 miles away. As I read to the House yesterday, in the last two years milk has been introduced from unlicensed stables, and even from the Transvaal and the Free State, for sterilization, to help to meet the demand. This is not economical from the point of view of transport costs alone, and the position is going to deteriorate further, unless something positive is done now. I suggest that farmers will naturally respond to better prices by increasing production.

In the last 18 months the artificial insemination institute at Baynesfield has lost over 1,000 cows. Over 1,000 cows that have been served by this institute have been removed in the last 18 months, and this number is continuing to drop. This loss of 1,000 cows represents a loss of over 2,000 gallons in production per day. And let me say here and now that I do not think that this loss is on account of farmers reverting to the natural use of bulls. Nor is it, I submit, on account of the drought. It is merely on account of the decrease in the number of herds. Now, why are the herds decreasing? This is the question that I have been wanting to ask and this is one of the things that I want to discuss with the Minister. I want to submit four reasons for the decrease in the number of herds in that particular area, namely the midlands area of Natal, and these are reasons which have been put forward to me by farmers and farmers’ organizations.

The first and the main reason is one that has been plugged here to-day, yesterday, and in agricultural debates for I do not know how many years past, namely the failure to fix an economic price for milk. The dairy-man is being forced to switch to more profitable enterprises. The hon. member for Walmer also stressed this point. Admittedly the dairy farmer in Natal has had three increases in price in the last three years, but organized agriculture have shown that two of these increases have been absorbed by spiralling production costs. This last increase compensated the farmer slightly. However, since the last increase, railage rates have been increased by the unspeakable railway budget we discussed in this House a little while ago. Interest rates have been increased, the costs of petrol, diesoline, power paraffin have gone up. The costs of vehicles and of farm equipment have gone up. The price of mealies has been increased and therefore the cost of feed has gone up. In fact, almost everything has increased, and that is the point: Production costs continue to spiral but the farmer’s price remains fixed. Perhaps that is the basic reason why there has been the reduction in the number of herds in this area. [Interjections.] I think the Minister will have the opportunity to tell me that later on. I should like to hear facts and figures from him; I should like him to advise me where my statement is incorrect.

Producers’ prices have also risen.

Let me say further with regard to production costs that, as the hon. the Minister said in his statement earlier, various aspects of this matter should perhaps be discussed under the vote of his colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. Let me say that production costs cannot be reduced unless technical services are improved. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I know that you will rule me out of order if I pursue this matter any further. But let me say that the farmer’s production is as efficient as the technical services allow it to be. However, that is an argument which I should like to pursue later, under the vote of the hon. Minister’s colleague. But to pursue further this other argument—even labour costs have gone up. Not only wages have gone up but also the costs of rations, the costs of overalls, the costs of goods.

The second reason advanced for the decrease in the number of dairy farmers and dairy herds in the area is the labour problem. Many dairy farms are for sale in that area and in continuous areas extending further and further away from Durban.

At what prices?

At good prices. I am prepared to admit that. But the point is that when you ask those people why they are selling up and why they are no longer continuing with dairy farming, the main reason given is the labour problem.

And what is the buyer doing?

That is the point. Industry and the large timber concerns are the ones who are getting in. And let me say, dealing with the labour problem, that industry …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss labour on this particular vote.

With respect, Sir, this is farm labour.

Order! Farm labour, if it is Bantu labour, can be discussed on the Vote of Bantu Affairs and Coloured labour on the Vote of Coloured Affairs. [Interjections.]

Sir, I accept your ruling and I will go on to the third reason.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely in discussing the costs of production and the farmer, we can discuss labour whether it is Bantu, Coloured or White.

Order! The hon. member may proceed, but he must not elaborate too much on labour affairs.

The point I was making was that industry have taken up all the employable labour. They have taken up those with any degree of initiative and those who have received any degree of training. They have taken these men because they can offer higher wages, and also—and this is most important to labour—they only work five days a week, not like the poor dairy farmer who has to work seven days a week, including Sundays and Christmas Day, as we heard just now. Labour will, of course, look for the best pay and conditions. But this Government, by fixing a reasonable price, should allow the farmer to be put in a position where he can compete for labour on the open market.

The farmer is not asking for increased subsidies. All he is asking for is a more realistic price for his product, which he is not getting. Farmers in these areas are only getting the dregs of the labour, those who are left after industry and the vast timber concerns have taken the cream. They are left with the labourers who are incapable of holding jobs. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that the hon. member for Newton Park has returned, because before I express a few thoughts about what was said by the hon. member who has just spoken, I want to return to a matter which the hon. member put here. After the hon. the Minister had spoken the hon. member for Newton Park once more said that this Government had no long-term planning and that it wanted to solve its long-term problems with mere short-term measures.

I said that last night.

To-day he associated with the Agricultural Advisory Council which he would like to have converted into an agricultural planning council. I want to dwell for a moment on this idea. The hon. member wants this Agricultural Advisory Council to give its attention to the prices of commodities as well. Now I want this hon. member to tell this Committee, as well as organized agriculture, whether he thereby wants the 18 control boards which are at present functioning in terms of the Marketing Act to disappear. Or does the hon. member want the say in regard to the marketing of his commodities and the price determination of those commodities to remain in the hands of the farmer?

No, with such a planning board one would get much better correlation and co-ordination than otherwise.

Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he is not yet aware that members of the Marketing Board attend all meetings of the control boards? Does the hon. member not know that the Marketing Board is the co-ordinating board which also does the correlating? Now I should like to know: What must this Agricultural Advisory Council do that the Marketing Board has not yet done, or does the hon. member want to tell the Committee and organized agriculture that the Marketing Board must disappear? Does he want to say that we no longer need it in South Africa, that we must throw overboard the Marketing Act? But I want to go further, and this is a very important aspect. The Minister is held responsible by the House of Assembly, because the House of Assembly must accept the responsibility for agricultural policy throughout. If one were to have a planning council, I should like the hon. member to say whether it should be a statutory body, a body which would not be called to account by this House of Assembly, by the legally elected members? Should it be a body which would simply go ahead with planning without it being possible to call it to account? Does the hon. member not know what the Agricultural Advisory Council is doing? He has the terms of reference in front of him: he has read them. Does he not know that in regard to its advice, the Agricultural Advisory Council receives all the documentation from all the Departments, not only from Agricultural Economics and Marketing but also from Agricultural Technical Services and Water Affairs, and when it has advised the hon. Minister dealing with agricultural affairs in regard to any policy matter, the Minister as soon as he has announced that policy or has informed them what he is going to do in that regard …

Everything the Advisory Council does is secret.

Only until the Minister has reacted to it. The Ministers have given them the fullest right in this respect that when the Ministers have told them that they cannot carry their advice into effect then they, as members of the S.A.A.U., are free to make the S.A.A.U. and organized agriculture ripe for that line of thought and policy, and to approach the Government through the Agricultural Union congresses and say: “This is what the farmer in South Africa wants.” After this Agricultural Advisory Council has supplied the hon. the Minister with advice and the hon. the Minister has applied it, the Council accepts full responsibility for it being able to make propaganda for that advice at the S.A.A.U., or as far as organized agriculture is concerned, as advice which it has given. And conversely it has the right, if the Ministers did not accept its advice, to make organized agriculture ripe by means of normal congress resolutions and to convince them of the need for that which it is advising.

Now the hon. member must tell us what other task he wants this Agricultural Advisory Council to perform? He must be honest towards organized agriculture and towards this Committee, as well as towards this agricultural planning council. Does he, with that, want to propagate a new idea that the Marketing Act must disappear from South Africa? I want to analyse this further.

The Marketing Act is an Act which emanated from this side of the House.

He joined to that the accusation that when the Minister determines the prices by means of the Marketing Board and the control boards, there is no coordination and that he has not seen to it now that, since he has increased the mealie price, the dairy farmer—and now we are coming at once to the two hon. members—the meat or the stock farmer receives cheaper mealies. Surely that is not honest or correct? Is the hon. member not aware that provision has been made this year for a subsidy of R90.000.000 for that very dairy farmer, that poultry farmer, for that farmer who needs mealies to feed his stock with, so that he can obtain it more cheaply? Does he not know that the amount is 71c for yellow mealies and 494c for white mealies? I want to make it clear that in this regard the dairy farmer, the meat farmer, the poultry farmer, and all farmers, even the wool farmer, who need these concentrates in order to feed their stock, are consumers. So the Minister has in this way made the production costs of the dairy farmer, the meat farmer, etc., cheaper and has done so without forcing the mealie farmer’s price down.

May I ask a question?

No, I only have ten minutes. In other words, the hon. member is trying to paint an incorrect and distorted picture here in regard to the price determination by saying that provision has not been made.

At present cattle farmers are all paying more for mealies than they did a year ago.

Of course they are paying more, but in the meantime they are receiving a subsidy of R19,500,000. They are receiving a subsidy of 71c per bag on yellow mealies. Is that not a tremendous accommodation?

I come now to the hon. member for Walmer and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City). I am sorry that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) has just left after putting forward a case. The first point he made was that there had been an increase in the production costs of dairy farming but that the price of dairy products had been pegged. Surely that is not so? He can go and look at the statistics. If he takes 1948 as the index year, then it was 96; in 1958 already it was 134; in 1959 it was 140; in 1961 it was 142 and in 1964-5 the index figure for dairy products was already 151, as against the 100 for 1948.

How can an hon. member come forward in this House and expect notice to be taken of any facts and statements which he may make in future if he does not furnish the correct facts in regard to this price structure. I have a lot of sympathy for the hon. member for Walmer, because if there is a man in South Africa who works hard then it is the dairy farmer. I know that for a fact because I earned my first money with dairy farming. I want to tell the hon. member for Walmer that he has made out a very strong case here for our considering the question of graded milk and for our basing the price on the grade. I want to agree with him there. It is a direction in which we must move. But the fault does not lie in the price; the fault does not lie in the fact, as the Opposition is trying to make out, that an erroneous policy is being followed. Let us look at the position in South Africa as far as milk is concerned.

As a result of information services Australia, in the five years between 1960 and 1965, succeeded in increasing their milk production per cow from 418 gallons to 462 gallons per year. That is the entire national production. But in the Republic of South Africa where we have 60,000 cream farmers, 12,500 industrial milk farmers and several thousand fresh milk producers, we have this disturbing position that our production for the entire country is only 300 gallons per cow. That means that many of our farmers have a lot of passengers in their stables. It is therefore of no avail the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) coming here with an auditors report to indicate that a person’s profit did not balance with his production costs. The hon. member did not tell us what the efficiency of that man was and what the production capacity of his cows was. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that each year .4 per cent of our industrial milk at our factories has to be sent back because it is below standard, because it is sour. In other words, the farmers alone lose 2,760,000 lb. of milk per year as a result of inefficiency, as a result of bacteria, as a result of milk which is sour or which is unclean. [Time limit.]

The real reason for my getting up is to discuss a matter on which you, Mr. Chairman, gave a ruling a short while ago and I want to promise not to discuss the principle of the Bill passed just recently during this session, but I nevertheless would like to express a few views under this Vote which provides for the salary of the Minister administering this Act.

The hon. member may proceed provided that he does not repeat views expressed during the second-reading debate.

I thank you for your guidance and for your ruling. I am referring to the Agricultural Credit Act passed by the House of Assembly a few weeks ago. Mindful of the particular circumstances we have had in South Africa during the past number of years and the conditions which the farmer had experienced during that period, the farmer in South Africa tried as far as practically possible to consolidate his land by buying additional land with his own funds if his agricultural unit was not an economic one. For this purpose he used partly his own funds and partly a private loan taken up at a rate of interest of perhaps 6 per cent. In the meantime the rate of interest, as a result of factors beyond his control, increased to 8i per cent. In addition he had to take out a policy on his own life so as to cover that mortgage loan. The money the farmer used for buying the land has become very expensive money. In this connection I want to deliver a plea and in doing so I do not for a single moment intend it as criticism of what has been done in the past or of what is being done at present. I have the warmest appreciation for what this Minister and his Department are doing for the farmer and agriculture in this country. We are also aware that these things are being done because the demands made on agriculture are increasing continually. We have to assist the farmer to remain on his farm and to be able to produce. Many adjustments may be made but one of the adjustments for which I want to ask is to enable the farmer to consolidate his debts where he has borrowed money from a private concern to acquire land. I am now speaking of people who have acquired land for consolidating their agricultural units. I am not speaking of people who are becoming land barons by buying more and more land and who are assisting in this injudicious way to depopulate and to weaken the rural areas. I am speaking of the farmer who has acquired land for the specific purpose of consolidation so as to make it possible for him to farm on a profitable basis. I am asking that generous assistance should be rendered to this farmer by this new Department. We know what this Department’s task and functions are as defined in the Act.

Whether or not he is in trouble?

The hon. member has not listened to what I have said. The farmer has borrowed money from private concerns at a rate of interest of 6 per cent in order to acquire additional land; in the meantime the rate of interest, as a result of factors beyond his control, has increased to 8½ per cent, and he now faces the problem that that loan is called up. Other than climatic circumstances have contributed to that land not having produced the yield which he expected, with the result that he got into financial difficulties. He cannot meet his obligations from his own funds and for this reason I am asking that this new Department should go out of its way to render special assistance to this farmer so as to keep him in the rural areas. I am asking that that money should be lent to him at a rate of interest which he will be able to afford so as to enable him to stay on his land. Because local committees which are now being appointed will deal with applications for assistance which used to be dealt with by the farmers’ assistance committees, I want to ask whether it can be considered administratively to appoint a vice-chairman for such committee who can act during such periods when the magistrate, who will be the permanent chairman of that committee in terms of the Act, is engaged on other activities. We are all aware of the tremendous task and functions of our magistrates. These vice-chairmen need not take final decisions, but it will be possible for them to consider and deal with the applications and to make a report at a later stage to a short meeting of the committee at which the magistrate will in fact act as chairman. We are aware that it often happens that a magistrate is transferred to another district. He himself does not know what the circumstances of the residents of that district are and therefore he has a committee and he has to accept guidance from the members serving on the local committee. The only thing I am asking for is that administrative consideration should be given to making it possible by means of regulation for a vice-chairman to act in order that the work will not come to a standstill while the magistrate is engaged on his legal work on the Bench or on his other administrative duties as an official of the Department of Justice. This is my request. I also want to tell the Minister that there is a great deal of confusion in connection with the following matter and I shall be glad if he will clarify the position for us. For some reason or other there is a rumour in the rural areas that anybody who has received any assistance whatsoever from the State for agricultural purposes will not be able to serve on these local committees. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to clarify this point when he replies to the debate, because I suspect that an incorrect interpretation is given to this.

I want to raise a matter under the Minister’s salary under “Land Tenure”. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the State owned a piece of land in the Gardens which was transferred to the Cape Town City Council for a specific purpose, subject to the condition that that land might only be used for erecting one and only one statue. I am now referring to the piece of land on which the General Smuts statue has been erected. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express on behalf of the people who knew General Smuts, admired and loved him and regarded him as a great South African, whether or not they agreed with his political views, my strongest objection to the statue which has been erected there as a heritage for future generations. I do not want to go into the art merits of the matter. I am no artist and if that statue is a work of art in the eyes of some people, I shall not be so presumptuous as to say that it has no art value, but I shall request the Government to give serious consideration to asking the Cape Town Municipality to use that spot for another less offensive statue and to place that so-called work of art where it belongs either in a museum or in a chamber of horrors, which will perhaps be more appropriate. Those of us who had the privilege to know the late General Smuts knew that he was a proud man, and you, Mr. Chairman, and we who knew him will more or less be able to realize with what contempt General Smuts would have viewed this monstrosity of a statue which is standing there in perpetual ridicule of him. To those of us who are laymen and who supposedly are too dense and too stupid to realize the art value of that monstrosity, it is said that we are not properly attuned, that we are not artists, that we cannot grasp the art value of this statue. That is an easy way of getting out of one’s difficulties; one simply says that the other person is too stupid and that he does not realize the art value of the statue. We are continually hearing that it is a wonderful work of art. This reminds one of the painting which was hanging upside-down for three years in one of Amsterdam’s art galleries and which was regarded as a wonderful work of art until a small child came along one day and said: “Mother, the thing is hanging upside-down; look at the inscription at the top.” But I want to delve somewhat deeper into this insult to South Africa. I am serving on a committee which is seeking the removal of that statue. Other prominent South Africans representing all political parties serve on that committee with me; it is not a party political matter. A person who does not belong to the Nationalist Party nor to the United Party but who is a good South African is serving with others on that committee and he is equally shocked about the motives of the creator of this so-called work of art. He told me—I do not want to mention his name, but he is a very well-known and a very good South African— that when this artist, Harpley, erected this statue—and I am mentioning it here in public deliberately, hoping to get a reaction from Mr. Harpley sooner or later—he was being wilful; that he was not favourably disposed towards South Africa and South Africa’s politics. I do not hold that against him; he is entitled to his opinion but he has no right to use his work of art to insult and to humiliate South Africa more. I learn that the aims of this Mr. Harpley with the Smuts statue were the following— and I am quoting this in English—

If this is true, and I am half inclined to accept it as being true—why should future generations say that it is a statue of the strong man Jan Smuts, and not a statue of Chaka or Mussolini or Hitler or Stalin who were all strong men in their own right? I do not think that we as a nation can simply accept this insult to the entire nation of South Africa without doing anything about it. There are strong feelings—and I want to tell this to the City Council of Cape Town—not only in one political party but on the part of people who want to honour the great men of South Africa, that that monstrosity should be removed forcefully. We should not like to take the law into our own hands. We want to live in peace, but we want to afford those people who see a work of art in that statue an opportunity of making representations to the Cape Town Municipality themselves for the removal of this statue so that that piece of State land may no longer be blemished by this insult to the entire South Africa. General Smuts was a proud man and I know how his family feels about this monstrosity in the Gardens. When I was looking at the statue with some other people some time ago an old Coloured woman approached me and said: “Sir, why have they represented the Oubaas in such a ridiculous way? This is the sort of thing one uses to scare children at night.” If what I have said here is true, can we as a nation allow such a mockery of South Africa to be preserved for our future generations for all times? I hope that the Government will convey to the City Council that there are strong feelings about this matter and that people belonging to all political parties who want to honour the great men of South Africa have been hurt very deeply. If it is a work of art, place this statue where works of art are kept, but please do not keep it in a place where our future generations will be able to see this ridicule of the late General Smuts.

I am not going to follow the hon. member for Sea Point in what he has said, apart from saying that he has my sympathy in his major task regarding the removal of that statue, which does not look so wonderful to us either. I hope he will succeed in achieving his object.

However, I want to come back to the debate. Something happened here last night which made a deep impression on me. I am referring to the statement made here by one of the hon. members opposite, namely the hon. member for Durban (Point), that the Government did not have the courage to grant recognition to organized agriculture. He referred to the co-operative movement in particular. I feel that this is a very serious allegation against the Government, and as a person who has close associations with the co-operative movement, I feel that this matter should be set right. I also hope that there will be responsible members of the Opposition who will agree with me. The allegation was made here by implication that the co-operative movement had no part at all in the stabilizing of prices and in the economic stability of agriculture in South Africa. I want to prove that that is not the case. It is a pity that the hon. member is not present at the moment. He spoke as if he was an authority in the field of organized agriculture and if he knew something about it, because he said he used to be a member of the Executive Committee, or an alternative member, of the Transvaal Agricultural Union and consequently one would have expected him to have known something about these matters but apparently that was the case at the time when the United Party was in power. It should be mentioned that the composition of one specific board of control, namely the Mealie Board, is proof of the part co-operative societies play in this connection. I just want to mention in what way this board is constituted. It is constituted in the following way. Two members of the mealie committee of the Transvaal Agricultural Union are nominated, two members of the Free State Agricultural Union are nominated and one member of the Natal Agricultural Union is nominated and one member of the Cape Agricultural Union is nominated. These make a total of six of the 12 producing members of the Mealie Board and of the remaining six members three are nominated by the Transvaal co-operations and three by the Free State co-operations. As far as I know, the hon. the Minister has always accepted all these nominations. Consequently the co-operations do play a special part in the fixing of prices on the Mealie Board.

However, I want to proceed. It was also implied that the fact that this Government did not grant recognition to the co-operative movement meant that the co-operations must have retrogressed in past years. This is not true either. On the contrary, co-operations have experienced phenomenal growth in recent years. The turn-over of the co-operations amounts to approximately R810,000,000 at this stage. This is the increase during recent years. In 1962 it was R525.000.000, in 1963 it was R567,000,000 and the latest figure is R649,000,000. These figures exclude services and farming requisites. The latest figure for the total turn-over is R810,000.000, an increase of ±R94,000,000 during the past year, which represents a tremendous growth on the part of the co-operative movement.

But I want to refer to another special and laudable point of growth in the co-operative movement, namely the ratio between its own funds and funds obtained from outside. In this field, too, the co-operative movement has progressed tremendously. According to the latest figure available 39 per cent of the total turn-over was derived from internal resources. This represents an increase in the use of internal resources of 5 per cent in the past year. The co-operations have also accomplished further achievements. We have now reached the stage where the co-operative movement in South Africa handles as much as 70 per cent of the value of our agricultural produce. What right does the hon. member then have for making such a statement? I think that the agricultural members of the Opposition should in all fairness reject that statement. The hon. member also spoke about compulsory membership, but he was rather vague about that. I want to contend that the co-operative movement is an ideal amongst the producers of South Africa. With a sympathetic Government and a sympathetic Minister, such as we have now, compulsory membership will not be necessary because under this Government we have sufficient growth, and I believe that this movement will continue to go from strength to strength.

I also want to raise another matter. The Minister referred to it in brief. It is a fairly new service of his Department, namely economic research. These farm-planning studies were commenced in 1962. The Minister briefly referred to the large measure of success which had been achieved by giving economic guidance to farmers thereby enabling them to improve their capital positions and the profits on their investments. To my mind it is basically the task of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, particularly with regard to this division, to process and apply the research data collected by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for the farmer who has to cultivate the soil. First I want to mention a specific case. In the Bethal area, in my constituency, we have had the lay crop scheme for instance. After some of the farmers had applied this scheme—it was subsidized—these people came along and proved that although that scheme brought with it a certain restoration of the fertility of the soil, it was not economic to apply it. This proves that this new service which has been introduced by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing will be of much value for our farmers in future. Therefore I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to extend this service further and to popularize it more amongst farmers. We are already aware of the fact that various study groups have been established under this scheme and that they have achieved a great deal of success and have received high praise from the farmers themselves. I want to ask the Minister to give serious consideration to extending this service.

Further to what was said by the hon. member for Bethal, who presented the question of organized agriculture in exceptionally clear perspective, I should like to emphasize a further aspect of it—particularly in reply to the hon. member for East London (City), who is absent at the moment. The Minister and the Government are accused of not doing enough for the farmers in these times of drought. I should like to refer the hon. member for East London City to the Estimates. In the Estimates the amounts provided in respect of the drought this year total more than R4,500,000. That is for direct drought-relief services only, which actually represents more than the total in respect of some Government Departments. I want to read the amounts. There is the contribution in respect of administration costs of the fodder exchange, the subsidy in respect of the costs of the transport of fodder and livestock, the 50 per cent fodder subsidy, the guarantee to the fodder exchange, the grazing hire subsidy, the subsidy-on kaffer corn used for replacing mealies in stock feed. I may state that these matters originated one and all in the council chambers of organized agriculture in co-operation with the hon. the Minister and his Department, and that is the reason why we find them in these Estimates.

The hon. member for East London (City) had a great deal to say about a fodder bank, and I listened to that with great interest. If the hon. member consulted the old archives documents of the South African Agricultural Union, he would find among the documents of some ten years ago a document relating to a scheme similar to the one he is propagating now. At that time the South African Agricultural Union tried to float a fodder bank along the lines suggested by the hon. member. After a short while, however, that attempt had to be abandoned as it was too clumsy and impractical, because it was not suited to the circumstances. But that is what the hon. member seeks to introduce now to provide fodder in the drought-stricken areas. I find it strange that the hon. member should be so exceptionally uninformed that he has taken no note of what is actually happening. Some 1½ years ago the Transvaal Agricultural Union sent a delegation to this Minister. I shall never forget that, because it so happened that it was the day after the provincial elections and the results were beginning to appear, and the Minister was most anxious to hear the results of the election while listening to the representations. The Transvaal Agricultural Union approached the Minister with a very practical plan, much better than the archives plan suggested here by the hon. member for East London (City). It amounted to the dissemination and co-ordination of information relating to fodder. By means of its existing machinery and farmers’ associations and district agricultural unions, this fodder exchange receives information on where fodder is available in the fodder-producing areas, such as the Eastern Transvaal. From the dry areas, even as far as the Northern Cape and further away in the Free State, information is sent through those channels to those headquarters, if one can call them that, where the exact quantity of fodder needed to survive the drought in such areas or for winter feeding, is co-ordinated. As an ex-general should know, such information is essential for floating any successful operation. I presume an ex-general should know about that. If it had not been for the intervention of the Minister who, immediately after studying this project, voted an amount of R14,000 for administration costs and a further amount of R20.000 on these Estimates, if it had not been for the intervention of the hon. the Minister, who consented that R100,000 of the Meat Board’s funds be voted as a grant to organized agriculture for this purpose, and if it had not been for the fact that the Minister has again made an interest-free Meat Board loan of R150,000 available for this purpose, Operation Maize Stalk in the Western Transvaal, Operation Makatini Plain, where thousands of tons of fodder were cut, and operation Frosted Wheat in the region of the hon. member for Bethlehem, could not have been carried out. Neither would Operation Sugar Cane Top in Pongola and in other sugar-producing areas, and amongst other things also a grass-cutting project in Pietermaritzburg District, have been carried out. and then adequate supplies would not have been stockpiled at 13 points in the drought-stricken regions of the Northern Transvaal and the Northern Cape, supplies that are now being used for the first time. How the hon. member for East London (City) can come to this House with an archives idea and advocate a fodder bank while a most modern, practical and efficient machine has already been created and is operating with the greatest success, surpasses my understanding completely.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss a few matters relating to production costs. The first one relates to the little foxes that spoil the vine. The hon. the Opposition has advanced very strong arguments about production costs, and I just want to point out that if they blame the Government, they are blaming the wrong people rather than to ask the business world to search their own hearts. In the first place I want to refer to the problem of fencing materials. We know that the private manufacturers are urging Iscor continually to push up its prices, and that organized agriculture considers it important that Iscor should expand its production and that the others should not expand any further. It is in any event extraordinary that the private trade has a surplus capacity but that we nevertheless have to import tons and tons of fencing. That is my first point. Secondly, as regards the artificial fertilizer industry, I have here the “Group trading terms —1966” of a large fertilizer manufacturer. Paragraph (f), page 3, of this year’s publication reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, this specific fertilizer company handles 39 per cent of the fertilizer market. For the privilege it seeks of not using the storage space of co-operatives, it charges an additional R1.50 a ton. That comes to a turnover of 60,000 tons for just that one specific fertilizer company, at an extra R90,000 at the expense of the farmer. On the total turnover of almost 2,000,000 tons a year for the entire industry, and by using agricultural co-operatives for decentralized storage, it will produce a saving, if only at 50 cents a ton, of R1,000,000 for the entire industry. That is a substantial amount in these times of high production costs. (Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon I did not conclude the argument I was trying to present in respect of the dairy farmer. I was trying to emphasize the point that in this country we have two types of dairy farmers, namely the one who is in permanent production, and as I said earlier he produces a fairly constant supply of dairy products throughout the year, whether it be winter or summer, drought or favourable conditions, and regardless of whether the prices go up or down. Then there is the other kind of dairy farmer who only comes into production when weather conditions have become favourable and when there is plenty of pasturage and it is this second type of dairy farmer who is mainly responsible for flooding the market and causing a reduction in price at just the time when the bona fide farmer is in the position to reap the benefit of lower production costs. He then finds himself faced with a depressed market. I feel that more often than not this is the main cause of our dairy farmers becoming less and less each year. I raise this point not only as a plea to help the dairy farmer but I believe that it is important that at this stage we look at this matter very squarely and we look at it particularly with a view to the future. At the present time we are importing considerable quantities of dairy products from overseas. I think that we must face the issue that as the years go by our population is going to increase by leaps and bounds. I put this question to the hon. the Minister: If at the present time we are unable to meet our requirements in the field of dairy products, what will be the position in 20 or 30 years’ time when our population has increased by millions of persons. Where are we going to get the products to feed these people? As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, not only are dairy products an important part of the nutrition of our population, they are also very necessary for the health of our people. Mr. Chairman, my plea to-night therefore is that I feel that special cognizance should be taken of the bona fide dairy farmer who is producing the bulk of our dairy products and that there should be some system, some plan worked out whereby these people can be registered, whereby they can be placed on a quota basis and whereby they can be assured of a reasonable return on their outlay throughout the year. In this way we will ensure that we have a hard core of dairy farmers by whom our future increases in the demand for dairy products can be met. I feel that if we do not take the necessary steps now to ensure that these people are placed on a proper economic basis, our dairy industry is going to be a waning industry and we can ill afford to let this happen. We all realize that the Government is following the right policy when it tries to make this country self-sufficient in all respects. I feel that in respect of this question of dairy products in particular we are not self-sufficient and I believe that it is incumbent on this Government to take the necessary steps now to ensure that in the future we will at least be in the position to supply our country’s growing needs for dairy products. I also feel that very often when we come to calculate what is a fair reward for the farmer to get for his milk, butter and cheese, we do not take into account all the items that are involved in producing these necessary foodstuffs. We, and the health authorities, expect certain things from our dairy products. The health authorities have imposed very strict health regulations in respect of dairy products and the farmer has to bear the burden of paying for all the installations he has to use to ensure that these products are being produced under the most hygienic conditions. The dairy farmer, like any other farmer, is faced with increasing labour costs, his transport account goes up each year, his feed account goes up, his equipment becomes more expensive and above all his veterinary expenses go up each year. Mr. Chairman, to keep a dairy herd healthy veterinary expenses are a tremendously costly item in the accounts of the dairy farmer. I wonder when we take into account the price which the farmer is paid for his products whether all these factors are given due consideration. In conclusion, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish again to ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to this matter of giving the dairy farmers whom I earlier called the patriots, the people who have stuck to their guns through thick and thin and have produced dairy products through droughts and other difficult times, a square deal in any future planning in respect of the dairy industry.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about a few remarks that I cannot allow to pass. I want to refer to the hon. member for Durban (Point), who said something here last night—in error, I presume. I think that if he agrees that it was wrong, he owes the hon. persons concerned in the matter an apology, because one does not expect a front-bencher to refer twice in his speech to an Administrator appointed in a Province in terms of a procedure of which he is fully aware, as the “Nationalist Party Administrator”. That hon. Administrator is not here to defend himself, and I regard it as scandalous on the part of a front-bencher to refer so contemptuously to a man who has achieved a status he will never reach.

I defended him against the Nationalist attacks.

Mr. Chairman, in referring to that hon. member, I should like to say something to him. Among other things he said here that he was qualified to address the House as an authority on agriculture.

Do you or do you not agree with him? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, he said that amongst other things he had some authoritative knowledge of groundnuts, with regard to which he served on a committee. I now want to refresh his memory by saying that we deal mainly with three kinds of groundnuts. There is the red kernel, and we call that the Valencia or the old Virginia Bunch.

Then there is the Egyptian type, to which you belong.

Then there is the Natal Common. I want to tell hon. members that the hon. member for Durban (Point) does not belong to that type, but I want to include him in the third type. The third is the Egypt an Giant, and the Egyptian Giant has the peculiar quality that it has a pod as big as that, but in most cases it is empty. Mr. Chairman, in the course of the debate I was surprised to see some of the front-benchers rise and display a pitiable lack of knowledge of our agricultural economics as such. Looking at them, one appreciates, if that is the knowledge they display, why they do not have one rural representative, except for the one for Transkei. I just want to deal briefly with a few points raised here last night, inter alia by the hon. member for Newton Park. He made a bunch of statements which were all left in the air, and by doing so he displayed his ignorance in respect of the constitution of agriculture. I quote to you what he said—

Mr. Chairman, if that does not display the mentality of a Std. 2 child, then I am at a loss, because he should know in the first place that we are developing in the direction of an industrial nation, and because that is so, it is logical that our urban population will become larger in relation to our rural population and that our rural population will become smaller. But if he has the knowledge and if he is in contact with organized agriculture, he fails to mention that at this moment only 4 per cent of the American people are supplying food to the other 96 per cent of the population of America. Later he also said that we were in the favourable position that 17 per cent of our population provides food for the other 83 per cent. Mr. Chairman, I regard this allegation he makes against the farmer of South Africa as an insult, namely to tell a farmer that if there are no longer ten farmers but only nine, those nine will be unable to feed the people of South Africa. I can then understand, Mr. Chairman, why they come with the generalization—without knowing the set-up—that the farmer of South Africa is not getting his just share at present. If they say that he is not getting his just share, they do not actually mean exactly what they are saying, because they know that that is untrue. We have been hearing ad nauseam about dairy cattle and milk, and although I do not want to refer slightingly to those, I do not think our entire agricultural structure consists of dairy cattle. In South Africa we have an agricultural economy that has been built up from the farmer through his farmers’ associations up to his agricultural unions.

The request that control boards should be established in terms of the Marketing Act came from their agricultural unions. After consultation and in co-operation with the people whom they represent, those control boards approach the Government from time to time and fix certain prices for controlled products. The recommendation in respect of the controlled products then go to the Marketing Council and the Marketing Council makes a recommendation, and then the Minister arrives at a final price agreement. Now I want to tell my hon. friends that if dairy products are their concern, they should go and quarrel with their own representatives on the Dairy Board rather than to come and quarrel with us in this House about prices. Those are the people who should put your grievances right for you, and if you cannot make ends meet with your milk prices, then your representatives have not stated a strong enough and a sound enough case to the consumer members of that control board to give you a price that you can regard as fair. My hon. friend said in his speech that one of these days farming will become unremunerative for the wool farmer in South Africa, and then you come to this House …

Order! The hon. member must not refer to hon. members as “you”. The hon. member must address the Chair.

Then the statement should not be made in this House that we should take into account the prices of land when calculating wool prices, and then the people are not told that land prices are such that nobody who wants to start farming can actually obtain land in the sheep-producing regions, because farmers in the sheep-producing regions farm with a product that is suitable for those areas. I shall come to that point later, because that is one of the reasons for the continual complaints that the prices are actually the root of all evil. Surely it goes without saying that if I tried to grow maize in the dry-land conditions of the Karoo, I would show a loss. I would not be able to compete with a man who farms in the maize triangle and who receives a fair price for his product. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down gave us a lecture on the constitution of organized agriculture. I was surprised that he did not just as well complete the argument and say that nine out of ten times the price recommended by the control board is not accepted by the Marketing Council or by the Minister.

That is untrue.

He has had his turn. Sir, and if he calls that untrue, he knows nothing about agriculture. [Interjection.] If the hon. member will keep quiet for a moment, I will tell him the reason. That Minister and his Marketing Council co-ordinate all agricultural prices. If any control board recommends a price that is disproportionate to other agricultural prices, it is the work of the Minister and the Marketing Council to reject that price. What is one to do then? The hon. member for Vryheid went further. He said that this side of the House had alleged that the farmer was not receiving his just share in the favourable period we had been enjoying. Is he suggesting that the farmer did in fact receive his just share? No, Sir, I do not want the reply now. We have pointed out repeatedly how much has been invested in respect of agriculture. We have pointed out repeatedly what the statistics themselves show as regards the income of the farmer and the dividends he receives. [Interjection.] Sir. that hon. member can get up again later. He must not interrupt me now. The farmer gets less than any other sector of the population as far as interest and the dividends on his investment are concerned. If the farmer were to sell out at the prices land is worth at present, and were to go and sit in the shade and watch the building societies pay interest, he would do infinitely better.

Then the hon. member went even further. He said that I had alleged that the wool farmers would no longer be able to make a living. I did not say that, Sir. I was speaking of agriculture in general. If he speaks of the prices of agricultural land and of grazing in the Karoo regions, he should see the prices in respect of the maize land in the maize triangle, and the costs of cattle breeding. They are all relative. Surely it is not only the Karoo land that is expensive. Is the farmer always to blame? Is it not just as much the Government’s fault that when land is exchanged and reclaimed prices are paid that are far above the prices any farmer would ever pay? Are we the only ones pushing up the prices? Are the farmers the only ones pushing up the prices? No. Sir. The farmers are not the only ones pushing up the prices.

There I want to leave the hon. member and his lecture on agriculture, and come back to the hon. member for Virginia, who has just come in. This afternoon he made a remark about the fodder bank. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, I was not present. I believe, however, that the hon. member for Pretoria (District) spoke about an old fodder-bank scheme that is kept in the archives. He is very young. Perhaps he thinks the Transvaal Agricultural Union fodder scheme can supply the entire Republic with fodder in good or bad times. Sir, we may tell him something. I should like to tell the hon. member for Virginia that he is quite correct in saying that as far as concentrated feeds are concerned, the Maize Board and the Government provide.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I am not the member for Virginia.

Mr. Chairman. I am speaking to the hon. member for Virginia, who sits in front of him and who is his senior. The hon. member for Virginia said that concentrates, namely mealies, are made available in adequate quantities as far as we can see. But any authority on feeding will tell the hon. member that concentrates alone cannot sustain an animal. Now the question is: Is it possible for corporation or a group of corporations or a company established for that purpose, or a group of companies—and will they do it as a business undertaking, over a period of some years, when conditions are more favourable—to buy up all the roughage the country can produce in the form of tiff and cut grass, and whatever one can get, ground nuts and oil cake, to make feeding pellets? Let us deal with that for a moment. What is happening at present? Not only are small companies mushrooming everywhere, but even in the sheep regions, where they are far from their basic materials, companies are mushrooming and manufacturing feed pellets and a great deal of capital is spent on that. There are three or four of them in a small area. They mushroom there to manufacture feed pellets. To manufacture those feed pellets they have to get their basic materials from afar. The individual goes even further, and the Minister is aware of that.

There are many individuals who buy the smaller plants in an attempt to manufacture for themselves and to avoid the manufacturers’ costs. Now I ask: Is it not more economical— and it must surely be more economical—to use mass-production and to set up a plant or a group of plants that mix all the supplies needed in the country in balanced quantities? We know that there are three kinds of mixtures, namely the fattening mixture, the dairy mixture and the maintenance mixture. The maintenance mixture has a very low concentrate content. When these feeds have been manufactured they can be stored in a limited storage space. In the form of pellets they will not be as prone to fire as in other forms. But the problem remains the initial expenditure to make the scheme possible. I believe it will be years before private initiative or the cooperative movements start doing that, unless the Government itself encourages it. It will take years to collect supplies and to stockpile a supply to serve as a reserve with which to meet drought requirements. Nor will it meet only drought requirements. I dealt with this point yesterday. As regards the fattening of stock for the market, we are so far behind in this country that it is almost unbelievable. We know nothing about preparing stock for the market. The best way to prepare stock for the market is to let the animal stand at a feeding trough. If one wants to keep stock at a feeding trough, one must have the supplies needed to feed them. If one does it with a mixture of ground lucerne, ground tiff or mealie meal, one is still not doing it as economically and properly as it should be done. America is years ahead of us in the preparation of beef. I wish you could see how it is done there. There cattle are prepared from the time a calf is eight months old. There you would see how it gets that marble fat and how scientifically it is fed. But, Sir, it can only be done scientifically. It can only be done if someone takes the lead. I think it is up to the Government to take the lead. I think the hon. the Minister is the one who should take the lead.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. member discuss agricultural extension under this vote?

Under which Vote does agricultural extension fall?

Under Agricultural Technical Services.

If it falls under Agricultural Technical Services, he may not discuss it. That is a matter for another Minister.

Sir, I was not speaking to the hon. the Minister for Agricultural Technical Services at all. I was speaking to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. I want to recommend that next time he opens a congress of the S.A. Agricultural Union—if ever again he is asked to open one—he should avail himself of the opportunity to emphasize what an animal should look like if it is sent to the market in terms of his marketing system.

Sir, I should like to come back to the remarks made by the member for Wolmaransstad earlier to-night. It was actually under another Vote, namely Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. I want to agree with a great deal of what he said. If I remember correctly, the member said …

Order! Will the hon. member please say “the hon. member”? He is inclined to say simply “the member”, or “the Minister”.

I beg your pardon, Sir. In his speech the hon. member for Wolmaransstad mentioned that if an hon. farmer … [Interjections.]

Order! I will not allow the hon. member to trifle with the Chair. If he wants to do that, he must sit down.

If the farmer wants to consolidate his property … [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London (City) complained here that farmers were not getting their fair share in the prosperity of the country. I want to say very emphatically: Yes, there are circumstances beyond the control of any Minister which have made conditions very difficult for the farmers in recent years. I shall come to that. However, when that hon. member complains that the farmer has not received his fair share in the profits and the prosperity of the country, he certainly knows where the problem lies, and he refers to it immediately. He immediately says: “We know that the prices of land are high.” But now he accuses the Government of having forced up the prices of land. Hon. members can sometimes talk such arrant nonsense in this House! I do not know since when the Government has been competing on the open market and so causing the prices of land to soar. Surely it is the farmers themselves who choose to invest their capital in land at uneconomic prices? If that hon. member has some capital available and he wants to invest it at a ridiculous price, this hon. Minister cannot prevent him from doing so. How many times has this Minister, since he became Minister, not warned the farmers not to pay uneconomic prices for land, because the prices of products will not be able to keep pace with those exorbitant prices which are being paid? Seeing that this Minister gave timeous and frequent warnings, for which he was often criticized, I cannot understand that people should now suggest that, on a percentage basis, agriculture is not keeping pace with the prosperity of the country. I really think that is an extremely unreasonable attitude to adopt.

The hon. member continued and again referred to the question of stock-feeding. Sir, I do not think you will allow me to elaborate on that, because this matter very definitely does not fall under this Department. I believe that the basis of stock-feeding has in the first place always been reserve grazing. There is no more economical method of feeding stock than to make provision for reserve grazing. This Minister is not primarily responsible for that. It is the responsibility of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I have no doubt that when the time comes to discuss that matter there will be no need for the Government to be apologetic in that regard either. Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member talks about fodder that should be made available I do not know why he addresses himself to this hon. Minister. My view is that if reserve grazing cannot solve the problem of fattening up and supporting stock in times of drought, the basic solution is that our farmers should be taught to store up fodder on their farms for emergencies. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is doing a tremendously great deal to educate and to prepare our farmers in that regard.

I wish to return briefly to what was said here earlier on by the hon. member for King-William’s Town. That hon. member has really been very quick in learning to apply an old United Party tactic. I want to congratulate him on that. Sir, you know to which tactic I am referring. To everything that is done by the Government they say, “We asked you to do that.” He, however, has become more practical than the old supporters of the United Party. He made a heart-stirring plea for the withdrawal of stock from drought-stricken areas. Has the hon. member really not yet heard, and is he not aware, that a measure for the reclamation of grazing land has been introduced by the Department and that it is being controlled by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services? Why is the hon. member now making a passionate plea for that? I do not think he is such a stranger in Jerusalem. I do not think he is a Rip van Winkel who has been asleep all this time. I think he is aware of that measure. Next year he will get up and say, “Look in my Hansard. I pleaded for that, and now the Government has introduced it.” The only thing that he will forget to do is to look at the dates and to see when it was introduced and when he pleaded for it. Let me therefore tell him now that we want it in Hansard, so that he may not come to us with that typical United Party tactic next year.

Order! The hon. member for Newton Park would like to put a question.

Mr. Chairman, I have so little time, unfortunately, that I cannot reply to his question. Organized agriculture has submitted a request to the Government that all drought assistance by way of subsidies, loans or whatever should be made subject to the soil conservation measures which are contained in this scheme. Sir, I should like to pay tribute to a particular group of farmers in our country this evening. I am referring to those people in the drought-stricken areas who, in spite of a disastrous drought, have carried on with their farming activities. We must remember that there is a part of our country which experienced an unbroken period of drought from 1961 to 1965. They had a small period of relief. In actual fact it was a flood. They have again had a drought since. I think it speaks volumes for the perseverance and powers of endurance of those people that they are still carrying on with their farming activities. I think all sections of society take off their hats in deep respect to those people who are carrying on. Those people, however, would simply not have been able to survive under those circumstances, because they were faced with a disaster, a natural disaster of a magnitude such as is seldom encountered in this country of ours. It is traditional that if any particular section of the population is stricken by some natural or other disaster, the Government comes to the assistance of those people. My purpose in getting up here to-night is, on behalf and on the instructions of those people —I am referring in particular to the farmers of the North-West—to convey their thanks to this Minister and his Department. Those good people believe in fighting for their continued existence. They are people who know how to adapt themselves to the conditions of life and who, in these natural conditions, did not lay any blame on the Government. They have requested me to convey their thanks to the hon. the Minister for the wonderful way in which they have been assisted, which has made it possible for them to survive this natural disaster. On behalf and on the instructions of those people I wish to convey our thanks to the hon. the Minister and his Department this evening for the subsidies and the loans which have been made available so freely. Sir, the people of the North-West are not people who ask for subsidies. They are people with a tremendously strong sense of pride. But because the disaster assumed such serious proportions and as a result of the way in which this assistance has been granted to them, the people concerned appreciate it very highly that the Minister and his Department have come to their assistance in such a tactful way, and much more. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, this debate has been an experience. I said in my maiden speech here that you must excuse me because I had not fought an election campaign and did not know how to deal with the Opposition. I still do not know to-night because I have not really found them yet. One of my experiences here to-day was that the hon. member for Walmer said that, in order to be a patriot a man should really be a dairy farmer! He must struggle and work seven days a week and only then does he become a patriot. In addition the bon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) came along and complained about milk farmers buying each other out there in his area, and about Durban where so much milk is being drunk, and then he added: “Milk has been introduced from unlicensed stables and even from the Transvaal and the Free State.” I am sorry that the hon. member now classes the Transvaal and the Free State under “unlicensed stables”. May I suggest that it is perhaps on account of that strong drink (tiermelk) which has been imported from the Free State and the Transvaal that Natal is now becoming Nationalist.

I am somewhat concerned that a large number of South African citizens see South Africa as consisting of a few megalopolitan areas which are linked together by expressways running through miles and miles of countryside. This South Africa of ours has changed in the short space of time of approximately 30 years from a largely agrarian community to an industrial community, admittedly because an exceptional industrial growth has taken place here. This state of affairs was brought about as a result of the industrial growth which took place here for various reasons, but also—and this must not be forgotten—as a result of the progress which is at present taking place and the technological development in various fields which has already taken place in agriculture. It is true that the farming population has steadily diminished, for as the technological progress took place fewer and fewer farmers fed more and more people. This state of affairs, as I see it, will in fact continue. If one were to glance at the statistics one would find that this state of affairs is unfortunately being accompanied with a tremendous increase in land prices. I noticed only last week that in the area of the hon. doctor from Middelburg who is the member for East London (City) …

The hon. member is now a professor; he has exchanged his generalship for a professorship.

I noticed that in the district of the hon. member for East London (City) a farm of 2,700 morgen was sold for R180.000, i.e. for approximately R65 per morgen. So one can look at other statistics; the hon. member for Winburg also mentioned this matter here last night. In my opinion that brings us to one of the basic problems of agriculture in South Africa, i.e. the tremendously high land prices. I think that the hon. the Minister with this new financing scheme for which provision is being made in the Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure Act, is getting to the root of this problem. I think that the hon. the Minister—this is how I understood him—will set the example by not purchasing uneconomic units for farmers; that he will attempt, by means of this Act, to determine land prices in a proper, realistic way. But if one is dealing with land prices and realistic land prices, then the question of uneconomic units immediately crops up. What is an uneconomic unit? In the short time which I have at my disposal I in no way want to try and enlarge on what I regard as an uneconomic unit. Suffice it to say that in my opinion what is required is an individual investigation of an individual problem, and that it should be determined separately in different places. The fact of the matter is that there are many factors connected with this, factors such as the size of the land, the type of farming practised, and the farmer himself. But one fact is as plain as a pikestaff: A large part of those land units are going to be uneconomic because they are too small. These lands will, in due course, have to be consolidated. The fact of the matter is then that quite a number of these farmers are. with the passing of years, practically going to be forced to leave the land, and then the question occurs to me: “What will become of those farmers?” They are people of quality. If one considers my constituency, the most sparsely populated constituency in the entire Free State, then I make so bold as to say that its greatest asset lies in its human potential. If this trend, i.e. the depopulation of the rural areas, has to continue—-and I cannot see how it can do otherwise—then another refuge must be found for these people. I therefore do not merely see this problem as a problem concerning agriculture, but as a problem concerning the underdevelopment of the rural areas. As long as another refuge for these people is not being created by the development of the rural areas then they will continue to cling to farming at all costs, against all sound advice, and these people will continue to be regarded as an agricultural problem which, in reality, they are not. That is why I want to make the following plea here to-night: I do not want a new Iscor in each small country town, but I want to put it to you in this way, that if there is a mill in a small town where two or three families can gain a livelihood, then there is a livelihood to be gained by possibly three farmers, and I want to say that five additional families in each small country town would already be a tremendous improvement. [Time limit.]

We have been debating agricultural economics and marketing. and having listened to the debate, I fear that the wrong impression is being created by hon. members opposite, that everything is being done for the farmers; that everything the agriculturist could possibly wish for is being done for him. This is most disturbing. Sir, I am a farmer. I have farm properties and I represent, an urban area, a city area where there are no farm units. Hon. members on the Government side may be lucky or they may be unlucky. I may be the lucky one. together with the hon. member for East London (City) who has been referred to here by the hon. member for Fauresmith as a member who represents an urban constituency although he comes from Middelburg, Cape, but I would like to assure the hon. member that although we may be representing other constituencies, we at the same time are representing and working on behalf of many agriculturists in South Africa. We on this side of the House may be a smaller body than the Government on the other side, but we are doing equally as much work, and they must not think for one moment that because I happen to represent an urban area I only speak on behalf of urban people. Sir, I can show you files of documents relating to the cases of farmers. I am occupied day by day working in the interests of farmers, as well as townsmen, and I am very happy to be in this position to do so. It is false to create the impression here that everything possible is being done for the farmer, because that is not so. We know that industries in South Africa are protected by the State; we know that commerce is protected by the Government; we know that the mining industry is protected, that the fishing industry is protected, and that even the judiciary is protected; why cannot the farmer enjoy some protection? Hon. members must not give the House the false impression that it is only the farmer who is enjoying the protection of the State. The agriculturist plays one small part in the economy of our country. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the news this evening, and I would like to mention one matter which worries me, and which worries many farmers. I heard over the radio news this evening that a stock fair, or stock sale was held at a certain place to-day, and that a price of R14 was paid for Merino wethers or, as we say in Afrikaans, “merino-hamels”. Sir, we often hear this sort of news from the radio, but it creates an entirely wrong impression, because the figure mentioned is the highest price realized for wethers at the sale. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence to see to it that when prices realized at stock sales are quoted from day to day, the average price per sheep should be given. It creates the wrong impression to say that R14 was paid for wethers. I can assure you that it has to be a super prime wether if it is to fetch R14 at a stock sale anywhere. Let them give us the average prices, then the townsman will appreciate what price the average wether realizes. Let them give us the average price too in the case of beef. Of course, I understand that the stock agents want to advertise their best prices. The higher the prices, the better they can advertise for their sales, but it is wrong, and it is time they gave the public the true picture, i.e. the average price per animal. This is something which worries more farmers than the hon. the Minister probably knows.

Why not quote it per pound?

If the prices realized at stock sales are quoted per pound, it will possibly make the people in the cities realize that they are paying far too much for mutton and beef in the urban areas, in relation to the prices the producer is in fact getting. But let them give us the average prices realized, whether it be per pound or per animal; preferably per animal, otherwise every animal would have to be weighed, which is completely impracticable. Reference was made here this afternoon to the prices realized for agricultural produce, and we all know that according to the statistics of the S.A. Agricultural Union, the farmer in South Africa, on the average, is not enjoying an income of more than 3 per cent on his capital outlay.

Where do you get that figure?

From the S.A. Agricultural Union. The farmer is getting under 3 per cent on his capital outlay. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister or any big economist, or capitalist, who in South Africa to-day would be prepared to invest his money at 3 per cent and less? It is only the agriculturist who is prepared to do it and has to do it.

But farming is a way of life!

Most farmers are not farming to-day because there is a fortune to be made out of it—not by any means.

What is the reason for that?

The one reason is that we have had years and years of adverse conditions, the second reason, lack of planning.

But the farmer is prepared to invest his money in farming.

He is only prepared to do so mainly because he is a lover of the soil and farming is his life. He invariably farms on property which is entailed, or it is a family property, or he stays on the farm for sentimental reasons, not because he is going to become rich. I do not know of many buying ground to-day.

Everybody wants to be a farmer.

That is not so. Yesterday before my time expired I had just got on to the point which I wanted to raise, that the time had come for us in South Africa to start thinking big, to think beyond the subsidies which the average farmer gets under drought conditions to-day, plus the rebate he gets on railway transport, etc.; it all helps a little, but when it comes to saving a man from insolvency, the subsidies and rebates do not help him at all. We must think bigger and beyond those boundaries and we must start planning, and this is where I appeal to the Minister who holds such a high position in agriculture to start planning. [Interjection.] No, I am not speaking to the hon. member over there; I do not know whether he has any plans at all, but I do know that the hon. the Minister should be planning for the future. We know that we are facing a drought. I was addressing farmers the other day on agriculture and they all appeared to be happy. There was a happy atmosphere at the meeting, and I mentioned that they had every reason to look happy at the thought of the rains that were still coming, but once the rains have fallen, then they will all look unhappy again because they will then be thinking of the next drought, which will be coming again! You see, once the rains come, they will be followed by another drought, as sure as the sun will rise in the east to-morrow, and it is for that next drought we have to start thinking and planning. This is where the Government has fallen down during the last three years of drought conditions. Sir, I would also like to mention another point; I believe the Minister is worried about it; I doubt whether he has found a solution. This is the railway rebate which I believe the farmers’ co-operative societies should be getting on raw materials from which they produce sheep cubes to meet drought conditions. [Time limit.]

Arising from what the previous hon. member said, I just want to say that it is after all one of the duties of the Opposition here to criticize, but it has become apparent to me from their display so far that I cannot envy them their task; it is a difficult task to criticize the Government in this respect. After having listened to the hon. member I can do nothing else but to think that we have heard all this before.

Mr. Chairman, I should not like to make misuse of this opportunity, under the Minister’s Vote, of talking about the Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure Act, but I would nevertheless, arising from the powers of the Minister which result from this Act, address certain requests to him in respect of State-owned land and his policy in regard to the allotment and the alienation of State-owned land, of which there is still miles and miles or hundreds of thousands of morgen in my constituency. A large part of the Kalahari grass region between Upington to the north and Bechuanaland to the south still consists of State-owned farms, the average size of which is approximately 10,000 morgen. In terms of previous acts settlers were placed on some of these farms for terms of lease from five to ten years, and one of the conditions of selection for ultimate proprietary rights was that such a person had to find usable water on that farm. And so it happened that some of the settlers wiped themselves out, as it were, by boring for usable water in that area where large tracts in reality have no usable subterranean water, in some cases because the water is too brack and in some cases because it is situated too deep underground. The result was that some of those settlers had to leave that land after a. number of years. Some of them gave up quickly; others held on. Yet it is very good land. It is very good grazing land. But in recent years certain complications have arisen there which have caused me to make this request to the hon. the Minister. Other farmers living on other farms, who have already established themselves and have water, have found that one could, by means of catchment water and pans and by means of dams which are lined with plastic material …

Sunken dams.

… and by means of other dams which are even deeper and which one could then line with plastic material and put a cover over the top, make some of these farms more self-supporting, as far as water was concerned, than some of the borehole farms. In addition another good thing evolved as far as the relationships between the farmers in that part of the world were concerned. The farmers who were better off began to allocate pipe-lines to those who were less better off by means of servitudes so that water could be supplied to neighbouring farms, which could in that way be made self-supporting. There is also the question of farms adjoining other lands on which there is water and where application has merely been made for expansion, but in regard to which our old feeling against land barons may perhaps lead to such persons not being able to avail themselves of large pieces of land and make them productive. These developments which have taken place in respect of water on those farms, have in my opinion one aspect of uncertainty from the extensive farming which we have in those areas and to which those areas are eminently suited. They have tremendously improved the chances of making the best use of that 500,000 or more morgen of land, which can be utilized to supplement our agricultural production, to supplement our meat production and to supplement our currency by means of Karakul pelt production. All that is really lacking is the right kind of farmer.

And I now want to address a particular request here. I learned recently that a request was made at the congress of the Transvaal Agricultural Union for preference to be given to farmers actively engaged in farming operations who had been compelled to leave their land as a result of the prolonged drought, and for these people to be established as new settlers in that area which would in future be benefited by the Orange River project. The idea was, in the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, to retain the services of the good farmer for agriculture. I am not saying that that was his purpose; I am saying that that is the view he holds. I am not in the least opposing the request made by those people, but I am confidently asking now that when selling or alienating that State-owned land to which I have referred, preference be given to a certain kind of young farmer which we have bred there in the North-west. As a result of the Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure Act the hon. the Minister has considerably greater powers which he can put into effect in his policy. What I have in mind here is not that with the alienation of State-owned land and the allotment of that land auctions must be held or that the land should be sold on a tender basis, for that would merely lead once more to the man who is able to pay an uneconomic price, a price which is too high —and that is relatively uneconomic—acquiring that land. I am pleading for that kind of young man who has already proved himself in that region as a farmer actively engaged in farming operations there, one who knows and has been braving to a certain extent the exigencies of that region for a long time already and who has for a number of years succeeded in keeping his head above water. Even if the man is only a tenant farmer, even if he only began with a small herd of cattle, he has ultimately built up for himself an economic unit. But over the years he remains a tenant farmer. Then there are those farmers who have two sons. To the one the father can give his farm as a heritage, but where must the other one go? Perhaps he has to leave dejectedly for another place while he has for years persevered there, become independent to a degree, and would also like to continue farming on the kind of soil which he has got to know and which has got to know him. I know of many such people and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to take these people into consideration as a first and a sound risk when allocating this land, if that is going to be his policy in the future.

Then, just in conclusion, I should like to request the hon. the Minister to give a decisive answer as regards the acquisition of proprietary rights in the case of quite a number of probationary lessees who have been probationary lessees in that region for five to ten years already. They are people who have proved themselves to be tough farmers who can put up a good fight and who have, by making sunken dams, in this way made their farms self-supporting with catchment water. They have proved that they can be independent. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that the longing which the young Afrikaner in particular has to possess his own land is a very human feeling and that it is something which I think he, as one of our foremost agriculturists, will understand very well. [Time limit.]

A pearl of wisdom has fallen from the lips of the hon. member for East London (North). He said that rains have always been followed by a drought, but I want to tell him that there also has never been a drought which has not been broken. The hon. member said that the farmers were being poorly protected and he referred to industry and other professions. Was he not present when the Minister spoke a moment ago? How can he say that? Does he not realize that it is impossible for one single product to be imported without a permit? Any other product may be imported into the country. All the other industries are protected by means of customs duties, but for agricultural products one must have a permit. The hon. member complained about the price of R14 for a wether as mentioned over the radio, but how petty can one be? Is he also complaining because the radio speaks the truth? After all, that was a news item. It was important. Should they not have mentioned it? I cannot understand why he seized upon that as an argument. He also said that the farmer now farmed purely for sentimental reasons. I wish that all the sentimental things in which we could indulge could be so profitable. Then the hon. member did something which is typical of the United Party when he got up and stated that it was the hon. member for Nelspruit who had spoken, but surely we know him as the hon. member for Fauresmith, but he would not believe that, and the same applies to them. We know agriculture and we know what we are talking about, but they do not want to learn. During the past election I noticed that when they came to the rural areas and spoke to the farmers they said that the prices received by the farmers were too low and that they should be increased, but when they came to the cities and the towns they told the people that they were paying too much and, believe it or not, here I found the same thing happening in this debate. They have been asking for higher prices in this debate. That has been the golden thread running through all their arguments. In the Budget debate, however, we were told that the cost of living was too high. What is the policy of the Government? The policy of the Government has always been to have price stability under the Marketing Act, and here I want to congratulate the Minister. He has stabilized prices. It did not matter to him whether he would be popular or not, or whether it was before or after an election. He allowed himself to be guided by principles and by what was in the interest of the economy of the country and of the particular commodity. He fixed the prices on that basis. That is why our agricultural economy finds itself in the very sound position in which it is to-day, a much sounder position than it would have been in under the United Party. I should have liked to see what the position would have been had the hon. member for Newton Park been Minister of Agricultural Economics. According to what the hon. member said here about how little was being done for the farmers, I think one would have obtained distress relief simply by telephoning to say how much money one needed. If there is anybody who knows what it is to be stricken by drought it is we in the Northern Transvaal. Those people have been drought-stricken ever since 1958. Distress relief has been granted to these people ever since that time. In this connection I really want to thank the Minister and the Government once more, because this is the first opportunity I have had to thank them for the wonderful assistance they have given us and the contribution they have made to help us in this terrible drought. The assistance that has been given has not only helped the people financially to survive, but our basic herds have been saved at a time when we are on the eve of the new season. I want to agree with the hon. member for Newton Park on that score and I hope we are going to have a good year, that the rains will come and that the drought will be broken. But while I am on that thought I want to make a request to the Minister. Firstly, I want to thank him for this wonderful planning scheme to save the soil, this veld reclamation scheme which will come into operation one of these days and in terms of which one third of the veld is to be held in reserve. But I also want to point out to him that the herds of some of the farmers who will have to carry on with that scheme have been seriously depleted. I do not know how they are going to make a living with the smaller herds they have left. For that reason I want to ask the Minister that this assistance which has been given to the various soil conservation districts and which is usually withdrawn as soon as it has rained, should not be withdrawn, but that the assistance should continue to be given to tide these people over the years that lie ahead, for the next two or three years. I believe that if this is done we shall be able to reach the position where we shall not only succeed in rehabilitating the land, but also place these farmers in a sound financial position again.

But because this is a voluntary scheme, I want to ask that the assistance which is already being given and which I ask should continue to be given, should be given particularly to those who go in for this soil reclamation scheme, because I think this will be the forerunner to the better determination of assistance in future, as it will take place under the control of the soil conservation districts.

The hon. member for Pietersburg, who has just sat down, simply attacked the hon. member for East London (North) and accused him of mentioning the market reports in which it was stated that wethers were being sold for R14, and then he asked how petty one could be. The reason why the hon. member for East London (North) mentioned that was because it might create a wrong impression when the consumer heard over the radio that wethers were being sold for R14 each and he might then say that it was no wonder that he had to pay 32c, for a pound of meat. If mention were made of the fact that this was the average price and that there were higher and lower prices as well, the consumer would know better. But then he went further and said the hon. member simply spoke of the hon. member for Fauresmith as the hon. member for Nelspruit. Now I in turn am asking how petty can one be when one wants to use such an argument. But I do not think it is worth while taking the matter any further. I just want to say this. This side of the House is not always pleading for higher prices as the hon. member for Pietersburg has alleged. We have stated repeatedly that the Minister simply cannot always apply higher prices, because we should keep our prices in proportion with the overseas prices so that when we have surpluses and we have to export, we will not have to pay so large a subsidy that the fund we have established for the product will not be able to afford it. Why does the hon. member make a statement such as that when he knows it is not correct? These statements are made here repeatedly. The hon. member for Bethlehem said that criticism is all this Opposition knows and that the Opposition will never express a word of thanks to the Government. That is also untrue, because we on this side of the House have repeatedly expressed our appreciation to the Government when we thought the Government deserved it. Earlier this Session I myself said that we were extremely grateful to the Minister of Transport for the way in which he had transported our stock during the drought.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Namaqualand, who also accused me of saying that the Government was responsible for the high prices of land. It is not right to do what he has done. I said that, inter alia, the Government also contributed towards the high prices of land which are paid when land is exchanged for Bantu areas and so forth, which is quite true, not so? We did not accuse the Government of being solely responsible for that. We are aware of the tendency that exists, that if a person has a few farms on which he owes nothing and an adjoining farm comes on the market, he pays a high price to get that far. I do not know how this tendency is to be stopped. I shall be glad if the hon. member will tell me how this is to be done. I did not blame only the Minister or the Government for paying high prices for land, but, I repeat, the Government is playing a part in this, and the hon. member should tell me if I am wrong. I am grateful the hon. member for Fauresmith is back. He did not show the courtesy to remain in the House after he had spoken. He should show the courtesy not to attack one with inaccuracies and then walk out. There he is leaving the Chamber again. In his absence I shall say that this is the kind of courtesy the hon. member shows. [Interjections.] I speak under correction, but if the hon. member for Fauresmith has alleged, as he did. that this person standing here has sold 2,700 morgen for R180,000 then I call it an inaccuracy. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to where I left off just now, namely, agricultural credit and land tenure, which was touched upon earlier by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, and I want to put a few questions to the Minister. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad used the example and said that if a farmer had bought a piece of land to consolidate his property and had a private bond on that land, but was unable to make ends meet because the rate of interest had been increased from 6 per cent to 8i per cent, and the bond was called up, he, the hon. member, wanted to make special representation to the Minister that sympathetic consideration should be given to the case of such a person. I should like to ask either the hon. member or the Minister: If this person’s bond is not called up and if the interest accumulates and if it is a fairly safe bond as far as the mortgagee is concerned, to what extent will this person have to become verbally insolvent before this Department will help him? This is a difficult matter for us. The Minister denies that the Department will assist a farmer only when the farmer has reached the financial position where he cannot get any financial assistance whatsoever, either from the Land Bank or from private concerns. [Interjections.] If that is not the case, I shall be glad if the Minister will give a reply in this connection and say at what stage the applications reach Agricultural Credit? It is as plain as a pikestaff that as long as the Land Bank is still willing to help him, there is no need for him to go to Agricultural Credit, and neither is there any need for him to come and ask for assistance as long as the business institutions are willing to help him. As long as private enterprise does not bring pressure to bear upon him and make him insolvent, there is no need for him to come and ask for assistance either. If I am wrong in assumption, I shall be glad to hear from the Minister in what respect I am wrong.

I wish to put a few more questions to the Minister concerning the provision made in the Estimates. If this scheme as such is commenced with at the beginning of October or November, the consolidation and purchase of properties—and the loans must be sufficient for the rest of the financial year; and under the Loan Vote for this year there is an increase of only R660,000—does the Minister think that adequate financial measures have been taken to meet this scheme with all its implications up to the end of the financial year? In view of the severe drought and the fact that the financial position of so many farmers is changing from one of solvency to one of insolvency, it seems to me that the problems with which the Department of Agricultural Credit will have to deal in the coming year will be such that inadequate provision has been made for them in the Estimates. I do not want to go any further in this connection. I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister will only give special attention to these few points I have raised.

I just want to reply to a number of the remarks made by certain hon. members in the course of this debate. Without any further ado I want to start with the hon. member for East London (City) who asked certain questions. One of his questions has some connection with the question asked by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad in regard to farmers who mortgaged their land for the purpose of extending or enlarging their land where it was essential to do so. Now I am not talking about injudicious or possibly uneconomic extensions, nor about a person who has sufficient land but acquires more at an expensive price merely for the sake of having more land, but about a person who has tried within the bounds of reason to make his land more economic and who has landed himself in financial difficulties. In such a case this Department is there for his assistance, but I just want to make it clear on what basis the Department will assist him. There are, of course, various institutions providing mortgage bonds or other forms of credit to farmers. In the first instance it is not the intention of this Department to take over the function of the ordinary money-lender or the ordinary mortgagor, nor is it its intention to take over the function of the Land Bank. In other words, where a farmer can readily be provided with credit through the usual channels or by the Land Bank, this Department is not there for financing that farmer nor for consolidating his debts; it only does so where this assistance is no longer readily available to that farmer. The hon. member said that the farmer first had to be insolvent before he could approach the Department, and asked whether that was the policy. Of course that is not the policy. We should not like to assist completely insolvent people through the Department although there may be circumstances where a person may come close to being insolvent and where one will have to assist him for very special reasons. However, where he cannot any longer obtain credit readily from the ordinary institutions or from the Land Bank, the function of the Department is to assist him if the Board or the Committee finds that he has a reasonable chance of rehabilitating himself. The hon. member will naturally realize that in the opinion of the Board and the Committee many of the cases finding their way to this Department have no reasonable chance of rehabilitating themselves, and in such cases other measures are taken such as effecting a compromise with his debtors as well as other measures for decreasing part of the debts such a person may have so as to place him in a better position to rehabilitate himself. The hon. member also asked whether there would be sufficient money for the consolidation of properties. In cases where farmers have uneconomic land units and where it is justified for them to acquire more land and where it is possible to finance that within the bounds of the Department’s policy, it is of course the policy of the Department to assist farmers as far as possible to obtain more land under these circumstances. But hon. members will of course realize that even where one would like to follow such a policy and where one desires to do as much as possible for effecting consolidation, it is essential that the funds should be available. Hon. members are aware that the funds available for the general administration of the country and for loan capital are limited and that the Government cannot appropriate unlimited funds for any particular purpose. Last year an amount of R3,000,000 was voted to be utilized for this purpose, and I think that the amount for this year is somewhat higher, but we have to act in accordance with the State’s ability to make a contribution. But we also have to do so in such a way that no accusation can be brought against us such as the very accusation brought by the hon. member for East London (City), namely that the State participated in forcing up land prices, because then it would be contributing to the boom in land prices which already exists. For this reason I want to set the hon. member’s mind at rest in this respect by saying that the ordinary measures of assistance necessitated by the drought, such as loans for production purposes and other consolidating measures, will be financed by the State by making additional contributions to the amount voted in the Estimates if that amount should prove to be insufficient, and one should bear in mind that the Estimates only cover the period ending March next year. But I want to make it quite clear that we shall not be able, for reasons I have already mentioned, to make unlimited amounts available for buying and consolidating land.

While I am dealing with this point I immediately want to give a further reply to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad to the questions put by him in connection with the committees and the chairmanship of the committees. I want to point out that the chairman of the committee may be either the magistrate or the assistant magistrate, and the magistrate may nominate any person to act as chairman of the committee during his absence.

Now I should like to come back to other remarks which were made here. The hon. member for East London (City) made an admission to-night which to my mind takes us quite a long way in this debate, something which the United Party has never admitted before, namely that when it came to fixing prices one could not fix a price without having had regard to the ordinary marketing possibilities of that product as well as to its marketing possibilities in the event of a surplus. One had to take prices abroad into account. This is something which I have been saying for many years in this House and each year the Opposition has taken it amiss of me for having said so. If I have to make any conclusions from the demands made by the Opposition in connection with the fixing of prices in which regard they have often told me that I should accept all the recommendations of the Council or the Agricultural Union, I can come to no other conclusion but that the Opposition has always been under the impression in the past that one could simply fix prices without having any regard to the possibility of marketing that product either on the local or the foreign market.

Now we have at least made some progress in this respect. The question of fixing agricultural prices is a difficult task for any council or advisory body and for any Minister or Department to perform to an absolute degree of accuracy. Perhaps one will never be able to do so to an absolute degree of accuracy. However, the fact remains that the price factor is not basically responsible for the difficulties being experienced by the agricultural industry. The major problem, and this is borne out by the figures in respect of agricultural exports, is that agricultural exports have decreased by more than R100,000,000. Exports have not decreased because there has been no desire to produce or because the land has not been cultivated, nor have they decreased for the prices were wrong. They decreased for the simple reason that the product was not available.

Let us make a comparison. There is a decrease of R100,000,000 on the export market alone. Spread that over 100,000 farmers and one arrives at the amount every individual farmer lost on the export market alone. And then there are many sectors of the export market in respect of which we have lost nothing and in respect of which the export figure has been maintained. There are other factors which have contributed to these losses to a larger extent. The real problem we are facing is not the price of the product but other factors incidental thereto. Therefore I repeat that in the circumstances in which our agricultural industry finds itself—and no one denies that many sectors of the agricultural industry find themselves in difficult circumstances, I have never denied that—we are very inclined to say that the agricultural industry has not shared in the prosperity of the country. Now I just want to add that had it not been for this period of prosperity which we experienced and for the fact that our sales had increased to such an extent, our agricultural industry would have found itself in a worse position under these circumstances. Therefore, in spite of the drought, the agricultural industry has shared in this economic revival in that it obtained a better market locally for its products. [Interjections.] I do not want to argue with the hon. member.

The hon. members for East London (City) and East London (North) referred to the advertisements which the Minister should study, to the warnings appearing in the Press in connection with auction prices for livestock. However, I think we all know our farmers. If a ram has been sold at an auction in Bloemfontein they do not mention that ram which has been sold at an average price or at the lowest price but they advertise that ram which has been sold for R6.000 or R7,000. If a Friesian bull which belonged to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been sold at an auction we do not hear about that one which has been sold for R100. The bull which has been sold for R4,000 is advertised. It is obvious that this should be the case. But if we discuss things which deceive the consumer I can see no reason why they should be deceived, because the price at which meat is sold per pound weight on the controlled markets is announced every day, in other words, the average price which the producer receives per pound, is furnished. The hon. member is shaking his head. He should study the market reports. He should listen to the radio in the evening and then he will learn what the average price of prime and super beef is for the consumer per pound on that particular day.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for East London (North). The hon. member said that this side of the House created the impression, or wanted to create the impression, that it was doing everything for the farmer. No, that is not the case. As Minister I am not trying to create that impression nor do I think any hon. member on this side is trying to create that impression. If the position is to be that the Government has to do everything for the farmers, what is one to do with the farmers? On the other hand it is a fact, however, that that side of the House is trying to create the impression that nothing is being done for the farmer. That is the contrast between the two points of view which have been expressed.

Now I want to ask: “What is the function of a government in connection with agriculture?” We heard a great deal about planning to-night. The Minister should plan, the Department should plan, etc. What must the Minister and the Department plan? The function of the Minister and the Department is to plan the broad directing principles of agriculture. It is their function to plan through the various departments of agriculture by means of research and other methods how it will be possible to improve production by means of breeding, feeding, etc. There are various kinds of planning on which I do not wish to dwell now. It is their function to plan the directing principles. However, the farmer himself surely has an equal function as regards planning. The farmer knows as well as the Government or the Opposition that a drought is followed by years in which there are good rains and that these in turn are followed by a drought. Therefore he too should surely do his share as regards planning One cannot expect the Government to plan the farm and farming activities of every individual farmer in the finest detail. It is able to undertake planning on a broad policy level and I want to tell you, Sir, that I shall take up all the time of this House this evening if I have to mention what planning has been undertaken by the two Departments in order to advise agriculture on methods of providing fodder for its stock, of making fodder, of producing fodder, of feeding stock correctly, of correct breeding for improving production, of carrying on farming activities on an economic basis, of promoting markets, of doing market research, of developing export markets, and various other kinds of planning. It will keep me occupied for the entire evening if I have to explain all these planning schemes to this House. But I think hon. members know about them. Therefore I say that if all these things are planned by the Government surely it is the function of the farmer to plan for these matters on his part as well.

Then we come to the next point raised by the hon. member for East London (City), namely the question of fodder banks. We speak so readily of fodder banks being created within South Africa. Now, to a very large extent we do have a fodder bank here. A fodder bank in respect of protein feeds is in existence to a very large extent because the Government pays the storage charges of maize and is following a Joseph’s policy in terms of which a certain quantity—7,000,000 bags of maize— is kept available annually for local consumption prior to the new crop being received so as to ensure that that fodder will be available should it become essential to supply stock with fodder. Let us now examine the possibilities of storing roughage or of planning a fodder bank in this respect. If we had retained all lucerne exported from South Africa during the last six years and had placed that entire quantity in a fodder bank, we would not have had enough fodder for feeding 100,000 heads of cattle for three months. Can you imagine what it would have cost to store that lucerne for that period? But now it is so easy for us to talk about the Government having to provide fodder banks at central points. But we know what circumstances are. Our corporations which provide fodder to farmers in drought-stricken areas or which buy fodder on a subsidized basis cannot afford risking too many orders. If it should for instance buy 20,000 or 30,000 bags of maize, which would provide a fodder bank for that district, and it should rain that same day not a single farmer would buy any maize within a week’s time and the corporation would be saddled with 20,000 bags of maize costing him 50 cents or 60 cents per annum to store until the next year.

Therefore this question of a fodder bank is a very nice story and a fine ideal to have. However, it is impracticable for the simple reason that it will be too expensive to maintain. Can you imagine what the cost of fodder will be as regards interest, insurance and storage charges if stores had to be built for storing maize-stalks at central points for a period of two or three years? Can you imagine what it would cost subsequent to those three years should there again be a drought? Should the Government or the taxpayer pay the storage charges? For this reason we are trying to get farmers to undertake their own planning on their own farms in connection with the storage of fodder during the years in which it is possible for them to do so or when it is possible for them to buy fodder if they themselves are not producing.

The hon. member for Walmer said a great deal about the dairy farmer and our production of milk. He made the statement, inter alia—and on this point I do not want to differ from him—that the farmer who produced milk, and especially dairy products, in times when grass was freely available, in many instances caused another farmer who was a regular producer to find himself in difficulties when the entire country was experiencing good years in that surpluses were produced whereby prices were affected. For this reason he suggested that there should be some form of registration of dairy farmers. If there is to be such a system of registration who is to determine which farmer is in fact a dairy farmer and which fanner is not? Who is to determine which farmer has the right to obtain a certain price for his products and which farmer does not have that right? The fact remains that milk produced for manufacturing butter is produced more economically if it is possible to produce it on natural pasturage. Countries abroad such as New Zealand prove that to us. In New Zealand one has the position that New Zealand’s dairy production is based on pasturage and one finds that it is possible for us at present to import butter more cheaply into South Africa than the price our own producers are able to obtain for their products. Therefore to introduce a scheme or to undertake planning which will prohibit one’s butter producer to produce butter economically during times when it is possible for him to do so, is an utterly impossible task. Agriculture itself, agricultural leaders and the Agricultural Advisory Board will never approve of such a scheme. For this reason I say that price adjustments for this product will have to be made from time to time in accordance with the demand for that product, in accordance with the consumption of that product and in accordance with the increase in production costs. But on the other hand it would also mean, whether we want to know it or not, that we shall have to place our production of dairy products on a much higher level of efficiency. To a certain extent I am a dairy farmer myself, though I am a member of Parliament now, and when the prices of dairy products decreased during the past number of years I found that by disposing of one’s cows that were weak or not such good producers one could push up one’s margin of profit.

This is what we will have to do in our dairy industry, because if the efficiency factor is not very strongly stressed in our dairy industry we shall never find ourselves in a position of producing a surplus and of disposing of that surplus on any market abroad. There simply will be no market for those products. For this reason we will always have to produce just enough for South Africa when it is possible for us to produce in good times. For this reason I am saying that we should also be efficient. It is not always possible simply to obtain a certain price. One’s consumer is not always prepared to pay that price or he substitutes something else for that product. You know, Sir, pressure is exercised on me as Minister every day that margarine should be coloured yellow so as to have the colour of butter, but because it will then be possible for margarine to compete with butter we have always refused to do so. But if the prices of our dairy products, and especially our butter prices, should become very high I ask you, Sir, what Government and what Minister of Agriculture would be able to withstand this pressure on the part of the consuming public? For this reason we should not always look at higher prices only but also at the efficiency of our industry. Even though our profits may be a little lower at times we shall readily be able to keep our industry going by means of increased efficiency.

Then I want to come to the hon. member for Sea Point who spoke about the statue of General Smuts which was erected in the Gardens. I just want to tell the hon. member that that land is in fact under the control of the Cape Town City Council, as the hon. member said himself. Prior to the erection of the statue the City Council applied to the Previous Minister …

It is not a statue; it is a monstrosity.

Well, are you an artist too?

No, but it remains a monstrosity.

The City Council applied at that time to the previous Minister for permission to erect a statue of General Smuts on land which had been specifically granted to them for the purpose of cultivating a garden. They were granted permission to do so. Now the hon. member asks that we should exercise the authority which this House has to force the Municipality to remove that statue. There is tremendous difference of opinion about the erection of the statue itself. There is tremendous difference of opinion amongst the then supporters of General Smuts. The hon. member for Sea Point said it was a monstrosity. I am inclined to agree with him although I myself am not an artist. The first time I looked at the statue I said that even if it should be a symbolic representation of General Smuts it remained a monstrosity as far as I was concerned because to me it in no way represented the person I got to know in this House. Therefore, although I do not want to give myself out as being an artist—far from it—I nevertheless agree with the hon. member.

The thing scares me.

Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he can imagine the Government saying at this stage, where we do have this difference of opinion about the statue, namely whether it is a monstrosity or a work of art, that it was going to withdraw from the City Council the right granted by the Minister for the erection of the statue?

Permission was granted for the erection of a statue and not a monstrosity.

I think the hon. member was quite right in saying that if there were people who felt that the statue must be removed, it was the task of those people to take action themselves to force the City Council to do so. However, I do not think he can expect for a single moment that the Minister should use his authority under these circumstances, and with due regard being had to the conditions under which the land was ceded to the City Council, to tell the City Council that they should remove the statue.

Just think that such a statue may one day be erected in your honour.

Perhaps that would be suitable. But if a statue of the hon. member for Durban (Point) had to be erected in the same dimensions as that of General Smuts, I do not know whether there would be enough room for doing so.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Newton Park, who once again raised the question of a planning board. The hon. member is of course aware that the Prime Minister has an Economic Advisory Council. All the various interests, including agriculture, are represented on this Council which plans the entire economy of South Africa, including agriculture, on a broad basis. This Advisory Council of the Prime Minister has every opportunity of investigating the price structure in agriculture and is in fact engaged on doing so. Under these circumstances it is quite unnecessary to have a planning board for agriculture as such. I shall tell you, Sir, why this is unnecessary.

In the first place the Agricultural Advisory Board is constituted in such a way that it functions in respect of agricultural planning through the agency of the executive together with all departments concerned in agriculture. But every board for the control of products plans overseas as well as local marketing every day. Therefore there is sufficient planning in agriculture. There is also the Marketing Council, which in the field of prices and marketing of products is a body which is specifically geared for undertaking planning and research into certain economic factors in the agricultural industry. It does so from time to time and presents reports. Therefore I can see no reason why we should establish a specific agricultural planning board, because planning in respect of agriculture is not something which can be unco-ordinated with the rest of our economy. It has to be bound up with that and this is achieved through the agency of the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister.

The hon. member for Bethlehem spoke about crop insurance. I just want to tell him that representations are of course made from time to time for a scheme to be established under which it will be possible to insure against set-backs to the amount of the cost of the crop. As I announced last year, I have appointed a commission to investigate the entire matter. The commission consists of a number of producers, members of the S.A.A.U. and officials of my Department. We have already sent our own departmental officials abroad to investigate insurance in various countries such as Japan, America and others. They had to investigate the various schemes In those countries. This commission has made considerable progress with its work. Of course. It involves a great deal of work and analysis to establish what the production costs of the various products are and what the relevant risk factor is in respect of the various regions. These figures have been obtained to a large extent and the commission is engaged on processing them.

We hope that the commission will be able to present a report on the entire matter by the end of this year. The hon. member is of course aware that we intend introducing an experimental scheme in a number of regions so as to see how the system will operate. In the meantime, as the hon. member said himself, there is another body which undertakes this insurance. An experimental scheme operates in certain parts of the Free State. I just want to tell the hon. member that where it has been requested that the Government should provide certain guarantees against losses which may be suffered by that company, it is very difficult at this stage to give any finality in respect of that matter. The reason simply is that a committee of inquiry of the Agricultural Union together with the Department is engaged on investigating this matter at present. It will be wrong to finance a different type of scheme during the interim period while we have not yet received a report on that particular scheme. It is very possible that the final report of this committee will be that existing insurance companies should administer these schemes and that the Government should make certain contributions in this connection. But at this stage I am unable to tell you when that will be commenced. In any event, I hope a start will be made next year.

A co-operative company.

Yes. co-operative companies. but I am of the opinion that it may be possible to establish this experimental scheme on a larger scale. But first we have to know more about the figures.

I think I have more or less replied to the most important points which were raised here and I shall content myself with this.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister tells us that the agricultural planning council is decidedly unnecessary, because the planning should be integrated with the general economy of the country; that that is done in the first instance by the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, and that the planning undertaken in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing or the Department of Agricultural Technical Services can be dealt with by the various control boards.

I will not deny that planning is in fact carried out by the various control boards. But if that planning by the control boards is supposed to be so effective, why did we have the position six or seven years ago, for example, where all the farmers were asked to integrate the stock factor particularly in the denser settlements? They then integrated the stock factor and it was recommended that all of them expand their dairy herds. They did that, and received all the financial assistance they needed to do so. And before we knew what was going on, we had a surplus of milk, butter and cheese in South Africa. The next moment —that shows how good the planning was—the prices of those people’s produce were reduced, with the result that we are still suffering because they gradually sold all their dairy herds. Now I say that as far as this side of the House is concerned, that vacuum is still there, namely the lack of proper planning in South Africa. If we had such an agricultural planning council, we could eliminate duplication. They could warn the farmers not to go in for a product of which a surplus might arise in course of time or very shortly. They could even encourage more farmers where they anticipated a shortage of a particular product. I maintain that that is the task of an agricultural planning council.

The hon. Minister says he is quite satisfied that the planning undertaken at present is good enough. He tells us, for example, that there would not have been enough lucern in South Africa if all the lucern they exported had been kept here as a result of the severe drought. In other words, what they would have kept here would never have been adequate to meet the requirements in South Africa. I doubt that. It is a very weak argument. For how much irrigation land is used at present to cultivate lucern in South Africa? It I think of the Vaalharts Settlement, for example, I wonder whether the average farmer there has more than, say, five morgen under lucern at present. For the simple reason, Sir, that those people found that lucern was un-remunerative, and it was also recommended that they plough up that lucern and go in for a product that would have much more value economically. That happened along the Orange River. That happened everywhere. Now the hon. the Minister is trying to tell me that the planning in South Africa is sound. On the contrary. After listening to the Minister, I am still convinced that as far as agriculture in South Africa is concerned, a planning council is decidedly essential.

But the argument was also advanced in this debate: What would the United Party Government have done under these circumstances? Since we do nothing but criticize the Government at present, would we have helped the farmers of South Africa? But there is only one way—and the Minister should face this fact—to help the farmers of South Africa under these circumstances, and that is to put his hand into his pocket and bring it out wide open. Some weeks ago my hon. Leader made the same statement in this House. I want to quote what my hon. Leader said on that occasion, and I do so for the specific edification of the hon. member for Vryheid, who asked this question. He was dealing with the rehabilitation of the farmer, and according to Column 36 of Hansard of 25th January, 1966, he said—

If it appeared to be necessary, a United Party Government would therefore not shrink from putting its hand into its pocket on behalf of this dwindling industry in South Africa. Nor am I ashamed to tell the hon. member that. He can rest assured that when this side of the House comes into power, it will see to it that the farmer of South Africa will once again take his place as a stable unit in our community.

The hon. member surprises me. He advocates the establishment of an economic council so that that council may prescribe which products may be exported. But under the exceptional circumstances obtaining in South Africa at present, who can predict how large the maize crop will be, for example? Who can predict that? The hon. member says he is convinced that when the United Party comes into power, it will set all these things right. In the short period at my disposal I also want to ask hon. members on the opposite side some questions, and particularly with reference to the criticism of the hon. member for East London (City) on our meat scheme. A great deal is said about the discrepancy between the price received by the producer and the price the consumer has to pay. But is the hon. member in favour of the re-introduction of a system of fixed prices in order that that gap may be eliminated? I should like to know that. This is a matter that is also dealt with in the report of the Committee that inquired into the abattoirs. The following paragraph appears in the report—

During the war years the United Party Government froze the prices for a period of four years, and we are still suffering the effects of that to-day. The Committee on Abattoirs deals with this specific point and points out that producers’ prices were frozen for a period of four years. But cannot we here in South Africa try and consider other means as regards our meat prices and meat schemes? I know we have an expensive scheme, but can we blame that on the producer only, while the consumer and his love of ease is mainly responsible for the expensiveness of the scheme? Is it the task of the farmer to tackle this scheme alone? I regret that the hon. member for East London (City) is not present. He reacted heatedly to the hon. member for Fauresmith. But the hon. member for East London (City) is not present at the moment. He is therefore guilty of the same thing of which he accused another hon. member. The hon. member spoke about the gap between the price paid to the producer and the price the consumer has to pay. But has he gone into the matter? The United Party is inclined to broadcast everything they hear without investigating the matter first. We admit that this is an expensive scheme, but it is expensive particularly as a result of the distribution methods in the cities. It is the consumer’s love of ease that is mainly responsible for that, because he orders his meat over the telephone and the butcher has to see to it that it is delivered. That means increased and additional expense. We want a cheaper scheme because we are convinced that at present large numbers of stock are going to the abattoirs without being ready for the market. I am therefore grateful for the Minister’s decision to appoint a commission to inquire into this matter.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 30,—“Deeds Offices, R983,000”.

Both sides of this House have at different times paid tribute to our method of deeds registration, a method which can bear comparison with the system of any other country in the world. On different occasions this system has been altered. Last year, for instance, Section 16 of the Deeds Registration Act was amended for the purpose of allowing registration of title merely by making an entry in the register and by an endorsement of the title deeds.

The fear of the legal profession is that this system of transfer is going to spread. There is a fear that what was done last year was only the thin edge of the wedge. When this amendment was made last year, we were under the impression that that procedure was only to be used when the State took transfer of large tracts of land, like uneconomic farming land, and also in respect of the takeover of land for the Fish River scheme. Now, however, we find that the system is being extended, despite the assurances given by the Minister and his deputy at the time that this system would be used only sparingly. Nevertheless, I believe it is now going to be used also by the Community Development Board as well as by the National Housing Board. These bodies are also making use of it under two Acts, namely Acts 3 and 4 of 1966. In terms of the law the State can transfer land to these two bodies by endorsement. But now we are finding that this system is spreading even to the S.A. Railways. They are buying land for their employees and are taking transfer of that land by way of endorsement. I contend that it was never the intention of the Minister at the time when the Act was amended that this type of transaction should be included. We would, therefore, like the Minister to give us his assurance that this system would not be so extended. It is an undoubted fact that the legal profession depends largely for its livelihood upon charges made for conveyancing and transfer work. Especially is that the position in the case of the country lawyer. When the Act was amended to allow transfer by endorsement it was thought that thereby the procedure could be speeded up but that has not, in fact, transpired. The work has not been speeded up. And, what is more, if we are going to allow this system to be extended, we are going to need more officials because there will then indeed be two systems in operation. At the same time the legal profession will be denied a certain amount of work and income. The State saves considerably when it comes to the transfer of property because it does not pay stamp or transfer duty. On the other hand, the fees paid to attorneys for this type of work are not considerable. For instance: If the purchase price is R2,000, the fee of the attorney is R16; if R5,000, the fee is R22; if R10,000, the fee is R32; and if the purchase price is R100,000, the fee is R117. These fees are therefore not very high although taking the country as a whole they amount to quite a lot as far as the legal profession is concerned. When we discussed this matter in 1965 it was stated that the attorney will still be able to get his fee because he would be doing the preparatory work—like powers of attorney, clearance certificates, etc. It was only the Cape Town attorney who would be denied this fee. But in practice we find that the Government attorney is doing more and more of this type of work at the expense of the country attorney. The country attorney gets certain fees from the Cape Town attorney as well in connection with the work which is done by them so that he is affected by the work the Cape Town attorney loses.

The Prime Minister has stated his concern over the falling off of recruits for the legal profession and it is well known that he, as Minister of Justice, took active steps to protect the work done by the lawyers. Everybody knows what these steps were. As a matter of fact, they were discussed in this House. But what is the good of the Minister of Justice taking steps to protect the attorney so as to ensure that certain types of work is done by him only if other Ministers on the other hand take work away from the attorney? We should, therefore, like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that he will not allow the extension of the system of getting transfer merely by an endorsement of the title deeds and that he will see to it that the attorney gets his fair share of the work.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be as brief as possible in replying. I can understand that the hon. member is concerned, but he knows what the reasons are which I put forward last year for the registration of deeds by way of endorsement, inter alia, that many of the pieces of land which are taken over by the State will go out of production altogether and will never come into circulation again. It is the position that there are other departments which also make use of this legislation. The S.A. Railways is one, as the hon. member rightly said. I do not think the Department of Community Development has made use of it, but it is possible that that Department has such powers in terms of its own legislation. In view of the circumstances of the case, however, I have decided to appoint a committee to investigate the entire system of the registration of deeds with a view to its simplification. It will be an inter-departmental committee, and people who have an interest in this matter will be given an opportunity of submitting evidence. This committee has already been decided upon. At this stage I can satisfy the hon. member for Transkei that this committee will investigate the entire system and will make recommendations in regard to the procedure that should be followed. I take it that this committee will give the necessary attention to the protection of attorneys, something about which the hon. member for Transkei expressed his concern.

Has the committee already been appointed?

We are busy doing so.

Vote put and agreed to.

Progress reported.