Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my notice that something which I said on 2nd May in replying to the debate in connection with the increase of the allowances payable to Members of Parliament has given rise to considerable misunderstanding amongst the officials. Referring to public servants I said, inter alia, the following, as can be seen in Hansard, Col. 4517—

Thereupon the hon. member for Houghton asked by way of an interjection, “How much did the public servants get?” I then replied as follows—

Then follow the words which have given rise to the misunderstanding—

Now the public servants have interpreted these words as casting a reflection upon them. They were of course not meant in that way. I therefore want to declare with the greatest emphasis that I had no intention whatsoever of casting any reflection on the status and the way of life of public servants. The unfortunate choice of words and the fact that the one sentence followed immediately upon the other may perhaps have created this impression.

Mr. Chairman, just before the debate was adjourned last night, the hon. member for Waterberg in his wisdom quoted a little jingle to us. I just want to tell him that if this Government remains in power much longer, the jingle may assume a new form, namely, “Ah, when Papa is laid to rest, there’ll be nothing to inherit!” I think that we have heard from both sides of this House that problems are being experienced as regards credit provision and especially the interest payable. This afternoon I want to confine myself more specifically to the sources of that credit. Perhaps it is slightly early to mention this matter now. It may be said that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has only been in existence for a year and a half and has not yet had time to go into the matter properly. What is more, it has been a particularly busy period. I want to add, however, that precisely because it has been such a busy period, the present system has displayed certain deficiencies and also certain advantages. The Department has certainly done good work with the inadequate funds at its disposal. There is no doubt about that. The first phase of centralization, i.e. the consolidation of Government credit sources, has gone off well. It is precisely the good results of this centralization which now serve to underline the fact that further centralization is necessary. I think that if we could have only source of Government credit, if I may put it this way, it would be much more effective, and the farmers would also be able to understand it much better. Now I know that the Viljoen Commission in 1934 as well as the De Swardt Credit Study Group investigated this matter thoroughly and that they were not in favour of the grouping together of short and long-term loans. I think that both the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit have since proved that this is no difficulty. While it is no longer a matter of short term and long term, I believe that we might perhaps experience difficulties where it is more a matter of economic and sub-economic financing. Many people will of course express concern and say that this is impossible, but I believe that it can be done and should be done.

In the first place I believe that the De Swardt Study Group did agriculture a great injustice by classifying farmers into three categories. This simply serves no purpose. The result is that a stigma has become attached to the third category farmer regardless of the factors that landed him in that financial position. Added to that there is of course the fact that the Department has swallowed up the old farmers’ assistance boards, which also had a stigma attached to them, and also the fact that the methods of providing credit which were followed at the time have also been taken over by the Department. We know that the Department of Agricultural Credit was not established to render assistance according to categories, but it is nevertheless a fact that the assistance they have rendered has been mainly to the financially weak farmers. The result has been—and I believe it has been a major one—that because of their pride many farmers have been reluctant to apply to the Department of Agricultural Credit, with the result that their financial position has deteriorated hopelessly because they did not apply for assistance in time. In the second place we now have the position that the farmer is falling between two stools, because in the first place he applies to the Land Bank for assistance, and the Land Bank, because of the norm it applies, refuses to grant the farmer this assistance on the grounds that they are in far too bad a position according to the norms applied by the Land Bank. Then such a farmer goes to the Department of Agricultural Credit, and then, as a result of the fact that the Department applies a different norm, it tells him that he is too well-off. Then he is left stranded between the two without any assistance. I believe that it is quite unsatisfactory to have different norms applied by the two bodies, although they could be applied profitably under one roof. At present there is no fixed criterion, nor even any understanding between the two sources, apart from the vague definition of first, second and third category farmers, which after all is based on personal opinion. Thirdly, we have the position where the farmer is already receiving assistance from the Land Bank, and where for some reason or another his position deteriorates so that he has to apply to the Department of Agricultural Credit for further assistance. Then they do not take over his liabilities from the Land Bank if they grant him assistance, and then, precisely at a stage when his debts should be at one place only, he again has debts with two sources and, what is more, on different bases. Fourthly, the farmer is also human. We have the psychological effect that where he receives Government assistance and is perhaps not doing too well, he thinks that since it is Government money, whether it be capital, interest or perhaps a little of both, it can simply be written off. This is an attitude which is not desirable.

Lastly, there is the question of economic guidance, which was also raised here by the hon. member for Bethlehem yesterday. Farmers have not been properly informed and do not know to what they are entitled, how, when, and to what sources they must apply, and what they can obtain there. I believe that if we have one source to which everyone can go, regardless of financial standing, without any means test, many if not all of these difficulties could be eliminated. It will be easier for the farmer as well as for the supplier. If there is only one source, the farmer’s record is in one big book, and the supplier knows exactly what progress that farmer is making. What is more, then the position of the agricultural industry at any time will, as it were, be reflected in one big book.

Now we come to the question of a source. If one thinks of having a single source, I certainly do not have the Department in mind. I think this is quite understandable, because the burden on both the taxpayer and the Government will be far too great. I do not think it is fair to place that burden on the State. In point of fact, if it will be of any use to have a single source, we must prevent a heavier burden from being placed on the Government. I believe this can be done by charging the Land Bank with all credit provision.

How?

The reaction is of course: No, that is impossible. The Land Bank is independent. After all, the Land Bank Act provides that the Land Bank must be run on a business basis. They are responsible for economic financing. If we now entrust sub-economic financing to the Land Bank, we shall reduce the level of efficiency which the Land Bank has already achieved. But I believe it is precisely this statement which lends strength to my proposal. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the speech made by the hon. member for King William’s Town, as I understood it, apparently boiled down to this, that he wants to place agricultural financing mainly under one roof. As agricultural financing has developed in South Africa in recent years, this is a completely impractical proposal. The Land Bank’s financial source is mainly the open capital market. In other words, the position is that one cannot bring in the sub-economic farmer, or the third category farmer under the Land Bank, because there is a risk involved.

Another point made here by the hon. member related to the question of the stigma attaching to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. When this legislation was introduced in 1966, it was stated explicitly that assistance to this type of farmer was in the main based on purely economic grounds, and that the State only guaranteed the risk involved by charging a low rate of interest, and so forth. Consequently there need be no stigma attached to it. It is not a charitable undertaking.

However, I want to deal with another aspect, i.e. soil conservation. We expected that the hon. member for Gardens would make his speech about soil conservation as usual, but it did not materialize. The aspect of soil conservation I should like to deal with is the question of the functioning of district committees. I want to make the statement that the successful implementation of the Soil Conservation Act will depend mainly on the effective functioning of these committees. The second statement I want to make is that the orderly development of the production pattern of agriculture in South Africa will depend to a large extent on the efficiency with which these district committees are going to function. In this regard I want to make certain suggestions.

In the first place I feel that as the functioning of these committees develops, increased financial support must be given to those persons who serve the cause of soil conservation in order to enable them to render their best service and to enable us to attract the best people onto those committees. Secondly I feel that we must give thought to the election of members for these committees. There are plus-minus 819 of these committees. My proposal is that we should have the election of members for all these committees take place on the same day. This will mean that there will be no soil conservation districts where the farmers will not be aware of that election. It will also make it possible to give proper publicity to soil conservation throughout the Republic on that election day—for example, by making use of the radio, the Press, and so forth. As the activities of these committees progress, certain qualifications will have to be required of the committees and their members. Where a committee does not function properly, or does not do its duty properly, it must be possible to replace it by one that can perform its task. In the report of the Soil Conservation Board about the evaluation of the progress made with soil conservation the inefficient functioning of soil conservation committees and committee members who do not do their duty were indicated as one of the main problems. The Board accordingly recommended that a scientific investigation be instituted into the functioning of these committees. We also know that the extension service pays particular attention to soil conservation. I think I am justified in saying that the State has done its duty fully as regards making people soil conservation conscious. Just recently we had the Festival of the Soil; we have radio talks and panel discussions; the youth are being taught the importance of soil conservation, etc. Therefore I say that on a broad national basis we are doing quite enough as regards making people soil conservation conscious.

But now we have reached the stage where we must have positive action on the part of our district committees. There are approximately 130,000 farming units in South Africa. If we cannot introduce a system now by means of which proper conservation farming methods can be developed for these 130,000 farming units, we shall not be able to implement the legislation in regard to soil conservation properly. The people who should apply soil conservation and conservation farming in practice are the farmers themselves, and if they cannot be persuaded to do so, then soil conservation is doomed to failure. I feel that the State must create the statutory machinery to make provision for, inter alia, technical advice, financial assistance, and so forth, but the operators of that machinery are the farmers themselves. They must do this by means of their various soil conservation committees.

What does conservation farming really mean? To me it means two things: Conserve and farm. By “conservation” I understand the physical and biological protection of the soil and vegetation; by “farming” I understand that the person who practises it must be able to make an economic living out of it—otherwise a system of conservation farming cannot become practicable. To my mind a conservation farming system stands on three legs: The physical protection of the soil, the biological protection thereof, and proper economic and financial planning. If you do one or two of these things and fail to do the other, the entire system collapses. I find it very encouraging that research is being undertaken, especially in the Highveld region, to establish certain criteria according to which every farmer can make a soil classification himself on his own farm, that is to say, can classify his soil into the various categories on the basis of production potential, pattern of utilization, and so forth. In that way he can determine the working capital requirements for developing and exploiting that soil profitably without impairing its natural fertility. Farm planning, especially on the basis of conservation farming systems, is therefore a much more complicated matter than we thought initially. Let us be honest and admit that we used to believe we were practising soil conservation by making contours and filling up dongas. But this is not even half of what is involved. Therefore it is important that in regard to the planning and functioning of soil conservation districts we should develop the district committees in order to promote the soil conservation idea in South Africa.

The preliminary report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture is exceptionally interesting reading matter, that is to say, if you are not a member of the United Party, because this report is actually a confirmation of the policy which the Government is implementing. This policy is the right one. It is interesting to look at the names of the members of the Commission. There is Dr. M. D. Marais, an eminent economist; Dr. S. J. du Plessis, an economist of the Department; Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers, chairman of the S.A. Agricultural Union, and others. All the recommendations in this provisional report are based on the policy of this Government. Certain adjustments, an addition here and there, and the shifting of the emphasis here and there are all that are being suggested. Basically this report deals with two things. Firstly, soil conservation, as dealt with so strikingly by my hon. friend from Bethal. The second is the elimination of units which are too small or which are not capable of providing an economic subsistence. However, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to-day to two paragraphs in these recommendations, numbers 8.5.2.5. and 8.5.2.5.1. Paragraph 8.5.2.5. reads as follows (translation)—

Then paragraph 8.5.2.5.1. reads as follows—

I want to stress this last paragraph in particular. In my constituency, particularly in areas around Petrusburg and between Petrusburg and Bloemfontein, we are very particularly concerned with marginal farming areas. As a result of the problems experienced by these people, and also as a result of the fact that farmers from other areas moved in and bought land there, many of these people began cultivating cash crops on a large scale. As a result of drought conditions and other circumstances, these people have now become convinced that this area is not suited to the cultivation of cash crops. These people now deserve special assistance to enable them to convert and to restore the land which they damaged by ploughing it with a view to obtaining a larger cash income. If these farmers could be granted this assistance in the form of production loans for the planting of fodder crops, they would be able to rehabilitate themselves. This would enable them to make their units, some of which have become uneconomic, really economic again. This would have the same effect as the consolidation of uneconomic units.

In the second instance I want to plead for the actual consolidation of units. I believe the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Agricultural Credit Board are making serious attempts to consolidate units, but as there is such a great difference between the economic value, die agricultural value, of a unit and the market value still obtaining in those areas, progress in this respect is very slow. I believe that the solution to this problem may to a large extent be found in the Orange River project. I believe that if land below the P.K. le Roux Dam is made available as irrigation units, it may serve to convince these people that they can convert, that they can sell their own uneconomic pieces of land to the State at a reasonable price in exchange for land under the Orange River Scheme. Then those lands which the State receives in exchange, can again be consolidated with other uneconomic farming units. I believe that a very large number of uneconomic units can be eliminated in this way.

I want to make a further suggestion, which may perhaps be considered as being a revolutionary one. I want to ask the Minister to consider whether the proper thing to do is not perhaps that this irrigation land under the Orange River be retained as State-owned land and that it be leased to prospective farmers on a permanent basis and at a reasonable annual fee. The advantage of this system would be that when these other farmers sell some of their land to the State, they would have all the capital at their disposal to develop their irrigation land.

That is socialism.

No, it is not socialism, because that lease could be transferred from one owner to another and to the man’s descendants. He could sell his lease. This would have the advantage that this man would have no capital burden, no stone round his neck to encumber him further. He would be the lord and master on his farm on a permanent basis for as long as he can farm there. The only effect it would actually have would be the same as was done by many of our forefathers, i.e. to bequeath a piece of land to one’s children subject to the condition that the land may not he encumbered.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Bethal that in principle I fully support the plea he made here, but I want to tell the hon. member for Fauresmith that it is a terrible reflection on the policy of the Government that a commission has to issue a special preliminary report to indicate what the Government’s policy really is. What has happened in the past 10 or 12 years?

To return to the question I discussed, in view of the fact that the Land Bank is so well equipped to handle credit, I think that they are better qualified to handle even the sub-economic financing, and this can be done without affecting the independence of the Bank. In the first place, take the capital. As far as this is concerned, the Land Bank can easily take over the burden of Agricultural Credit Since 1959, when they got the opportunity to obtain funds on the open market, they have had no difficulties with capital, and they are obtaining it at more or less the same rate as the Government. Therefore they can obtain almost unlimited capital funds Even at the present moment R346 million has been made available to the Land Bank from the private sector. They are therefore able to make available a much more realistic figure as compared with the inadequate figure—I repeat that the figure is inadequate—of the Department of Agricultural Credit, because we are getting only R18 million, according to the amount being appropriated this year. One is of course concerned at the statement made by the Minister of Finance the other day that the activities of the Land Bank will have to be watched. I should like to point out that agriculture to-day finds itself in a special position which cannot be compared with that of any other industry in South Africa. No industry has been so hard hit by both inflation and the elements as agriculture has. Agriculture has suffered the full disadvantages of both, and has received very few of the advantages. Perhaps the present financing of farmers is inflationary, but then we must also bear in mind that it is precisely the question of high rates of interest which increases production costs. Obtaining money at a lower rate of interest is therefore in fact anti-inflationary.

Combining sub-economic financing, as undertaken by the Department of Agricultural Credit at present, with the economic financing by the Land Bank, may give rise to concern, but it need not. The two can easily be combined, because this is already being done in various Departments, such as the Department of Community Development, which grants both sub-economic and economic loans. But the Government will of course be required to do certain things, the first being that the Government must guarantee that part of a sub-economic loan for which, according to its norms, the Land Bank has insufficient security; that is, where the Land Bank has for example 80 per cent security and the loan exceeds that 80 per cent, the Government must guarantee the Land Bank against bad debts for that part of the loan. The Land Bank itself carries that first 80 per cent. Secondly, in order to keep the Land Bank economic and independent, the difference between its present economic rate of interest and the sub-economic rate of interest must be subsidized.

Another subsidy.

Yes, it must be subsidized. This does not amount to much, because the Department of Agricultural Credit is already subsidizing that rate of interest at the moment, and the guarantee is not such a heavy burden either. Whereas the Department must now carry and provide the full amount, in terms of my proposal the Land Bank will carry the first 80 per cent and the Department the balance only. The advantage of this will be that where you have a sub-economic loan and your position improves over the years, your sub-economic loan can be converted to an economic loan as soon as your liabilities fall within the 80 per cent of your security again. Of course, the argument will be advanced that the Government loses control over the money, but, after all, until 1959 Parliament provided the money to the Land Bank by means of the usual Estimates and there was no difficulty in that respect. The books and accounts of the Land Bank are audited by the Auditory-General; we have the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and the control is quite sufficient. This is the kind of control for which we have pleaded all these years, even for the various corporations. Of course, the indirect assistance, i.e. loans to corporations and control boards, remains intact, as well as the farmer’s access to the private sector; these have nothing to do with the matter. If a farmer wants to borrow from Farmer A, he is free to do so; we have nothing to do with that. Here we are only dealing with the Government.

But if he gets into difficulties again, he comes back to the Land Bank

Then the position will be that the farmer, regardless of his financial position, will know that there is one source to which he can go; if he cannot obtain capital in the private sector, he knows that there is only one place where he can obtain assistance, i.e. at the Land Bank, and there the farmer will get much more than he can get from the Department of Agricultural Credit at present, because we find that since the establishment of the Department of Agricultural Credit only 59 per cent of the applications have been granted. Furthermore, it will eliminate a great deal of duplication, because look what is happening at the moment: We have farmers who obtain credit from the Land Bank and from the Department of Agricultural Credit for the purchase of land, for the purchase of stock, for the purchase of implements, for the consolidation of debts, etc. I believe that if we confine this to one source, the farmers will apply for assistance much sooner and before their position deteriorates, and that the Bank will in due course be able to organize matters in such a way that it will be able to grant loans much more quickly than at present. I believe that this is the crux of the whole matter. When a farmer sees that things are going wrong, he must be able to apply for and receive the necessary assistance immediately. Under the present conditions of inflation, drought, etc., it is terribly difficult for a farmer to rehabilitate himself when his financial position deteriorates so rapidly, I think it is a hopeless task once he has reached the position that his assets and liabilities are the same. Therefore it is necessary that provision should be made for him to be able to apply for credit before he reaches that stage. I believe the Government can take steps in this direction and that this will be a much fairer policy towards the farmer.

The hon. member who has just sat down pleaded that 100 per cent loans should be granted to farmers and that the Government should guarantee those loans I want to ask the hon member in what industry in South Africa people can get 100 per cent loans. There is no industry in which people can get 100 per cent loans, and yet the hon. member requests that it should be done in this case.

May I ask a question?

No, I have only ten minutes; the hon. member may speak again. The hon. member also made the statement that the Land Bank was not rendering sufficient assistance to the farmers; that it took too long before they were assisted and that there was not enough capital. This is the refrain we have been hearing from the other side throughout this debate, but on the other hand one finds that a newspaper which is one of the staunchest supporters of the United Party, the Rand Daily Mail’s subsidary, the Financial Mail, made the following statement in its edition of 10th May—

Then it continued—

This article—and I want to put this on record—takes it amiss of the Land Bank that it makes the necessary funds available to the various boards to buy the products of the farmers of South Africa. It mentions, for example, “maize, R260.8 million; kaffir corn, R19.2 million; wheat, R34.5 million” It goes on in this way and says that it is quite wrong that the Land Bank should make these funds available to agriculture, as it is in direct conflict with the measures against inflation. It concludes with these words—

I want to know whether hon. members of the Opposition have ever reprimanded and repudiated this periodical which supports them. No. It is very easy to say here in the House of Assembly, when pleading for the interests of the farmers, that more money should be given the farmers, and then to allow the Press which supports you and has mainly an urban circulation, to spread the story abroad that too much is being done for the farmer. One cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Chairman, throughout this debate we have heard the refrain from the other side that the farmers are having such a particularly hard time. This suggestion was made by the hon. member for Newton Park in particular, but he produced no proof that the farmers were having a hard time. Let us analyse the position. If you want to determine in what state an industry is, you ask first of all: How can those people pay their debts? Let us look at the Land Bank’s report, which is available to all hon. members. If I look at the arrear interest and instalments due by individual farmers, I find that the arrear interest was 2.41 per cent in 1963 In 1967, after all the droughts, it was 2.47 per cent. On the capital—and this is a very important factor—the arrear interest was 1.31 per cent in 1967, and that is on a capital loan of R179,619,331. In spite of the fact that the farmers are having such a hard time, as the United Party maintains, the farmers have succeeded in reducing their debts to such an extent that they now owe only 1.31 per cent of the mortgage burden.

May I ask a question?

Order! I have said that I am not allowing any questions, as arrangements have been made for 50 more speeches to be made.

In addition I want to refer to the short-term and the medium-term loans. Medium-term loans are in fact those amounts that were taken up for short-term financing. Here we find a decrease in the amounts in arrears, which is a very good sign to me. In 1963 the amount in arrears in respect of capital was 18.45 per cent, while by 1967, after these terrible droughts and after they had had such a hard time, it had decreased to 10.78 per cent. In other words, there was a decrease in the amount in arrears in respect of capital redemption. This being the position, surely the farmers are not having such a hard time. I know that the farmers want to pay their debts at all times, and it has always been possible for them to pay their debts, as is the case in any other industry in South Africa. Analysing the position in commerce or in industry or in any other field, one finds that the amount in arrears in respect of debts constitutes a much larger percentage. Hon. members should not make accusations without being able to prove them.

I now want to mention another example, an example from one of the most seriously afflicted areas, namely the North-Western Transvaal. If we look at that drought-stricken area in its entirely, we find that the arrear premium in respect of the insured capital is 1.16 per cent. That is of course very low. The arrear interest on the outstanding capital is 6.23 per cent, while the amount in arrears in respect of outstanding capital is 19.2 per cent. That is the position after a terrible dought of more than seven years. Many of these farmers had no income at all during these seven years. If this is the true financial picture, surely we have no reason simply to complain and to say the farmers are having such a very hard time. I say we should rather confine ourselves to the facts I maintain the farmers have been able to pay their debts just as well as any of the other sectors in the South African economy. They are not lagging behind any other group. They need not be ashamed. They can present a proud aspect to the world. They are able to do this because they are not really doing so badly. However, I want to say that speeches of the kind made by hon. members on the other side reduce the farmers to the status of beggars. They want to present our farmers as being beggars, as people who are always complaining.

The hon. member for Newton Park mentioned the wool growers as a good example and said that their production costs had risen out of proportion to the price of wool. What is the main factor in production costs? Land, of course. I want to mention a few disturbing figures to hon. members, and I think it is time we issued a warning. I went to the Deeds Office and other offices to make an analysis of the average price of land as compared with transfer value in the whole of the Republic. In 1963-’64 the average price was R33.20 per morgen, while in 1964-’65 it was R39.30 per morgen.

Does that include urban areas?

No, I am only referring to agricultural land. I now come to the extensive small-stock farming units in the Cape Province. In 1955 the average value was R13.40 per morgen, while the same land was worth R33.2 in 1965. This represents an increase of 147 per cent in the price paid for land in the small-stock farming units in the Cape Province. Let us look at the prices fetched by wool. In 1955 it was 38.49 cents a pound, whereas in 1965 it was 36.47 cents a pound. This represents a decrease of 5.22 per cent. Although there was this decrease in the price of wool, the farmers paid this 147 per cent more for farming land by their own choice. Therefore I say that there is no justification for the United Party to hold up the Government as the factor which did not see to it that production costs were kept low, as these particulars represent the main factor in the increase in production costs. I think that if the United Party want to render a service to agriculture, they should also say to the farmers, “Let us be extremely careful in paying these phenomenally high prices for land for sheep farming while the price of wool is not so very high.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the hon. member for King William’s Town when he said that it was an insult to our farmers to place them in a certain category. Let me remind the hon. member of what the position was in the forties. In those years I as well as other farmers applied to the Government for assistance, and honest farmers refused to sign a form of which the main heading was “The Indigent”. The farmer who wanted to borrow money from the Government was regarded as an indigent person and had to undergo that humiliation if he wished to be assisted. I have seen that myself, I myself had such a form in my hands, but I can tell the Opposition that I refused to sign it, because I absolutely refused to be regarded as an indigent person by the Government.

When was that?

When the United Party was in power. I now want to come to the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens). Recently he said here in this House that the representatives from the Northern Cape did not bring these important matters to the attention of the Government. I just want to tell the United Party this. To-day we do not have the position we had in the days of the United Party. In those days it was not easy for us to gain access to the Government and the Minister and the officials concerned. I still remember clearly how difficult it was for us to have an interview arranged with any of the United Party Ministers. It was something special in those days to get an interview with him in his office. It was even more difficult to approach him in the lobby or in his bench and to put your case to him there without any further ado. If his speeches are the only contribution the hon. member has made on behalf of the farmers throughout the years he has been a member of this House, and I have read all of them, then he has made a particularly small contribution. I believe, however, that he, like us on this side, has made a further contribution by negotiating about specific problems with the Ministers concerned. I noticed that he probably did not have the opportunity of discussing shortages of trucks in his constituency with the Minister or the Department, because he raised that matter in this House. I wonder how many days it took subsequent to that before his requests were granted. My constituency was one of those which were afflicted by the drought. We had rain only recently. The Minister was kept informed throughout of all matters in our constituency. He was kept informed of the problems of every individual farmer in that area.

Therefore I now want to thank the hon. the Minister and the Government for the assistance which they rendered to those farmers up to the final stages of the recent drought which has just been broken. They assisted the farmers to such an extent that the farmers suffered no losses. To-day we have channels through which we can approach the Minister. I also notice that hon. members opposite feel at liberty to approach the Minister and the Department, even to approach the Minister here in his bench when a matter requires urgent attention. I call to mind the critical conditions which prevailed in our constituencies during the past year or two. The officials of the Department did their utmost and even attended to matters over week-ends when they were officially off duty. I want to praise the Minister for those officials who had so much sympathy with the farmers that they did not even allow themselves a week-end off when the interests of the farmers were at stake.

I want to come to a very important matter, and that is the uneconomic units in our vicinity. I just want to tell the Minister, so that he may also be aware of this, that the policy which is being implemented so as to make uneconomic units economic ones, is a very important task and that we are pleased that the requirements of these people are being met. In a certain district within my constituency there are 92 uneconomic units. The farmers on those uneconomic units are such good farmers to-day that only one of them has applied for his debts to be consolidated, and he has been assisted.

In addition I want to make an appeal on behalf of our small farmers in view of the fact that there are certain matters in connection with our small farmers to which we must have regard. That is that we should not only market our products on a co-operative basis, but also make an attempt to produce on a co-operative basis. We need to combine our efforts in this way in order to cut production costs.

In conclusion I want to make the request to the Minister, because my fellow farmers have asked me to do so and because I myself am of the opinion that this is a very important matter, that the funds which have been made available to the Land Bank for rendering assistance to wool farmers by establishing a financial corporation which will provide wool brokers with the necessary capital to make certain concessions to farmers which will strengthen them financially when they need financial assistance, be used as soon as possible. I want to ask the Minister to see to it that this matter will receive his attention and that this financial corporation will be put into operation as soon as possible, so that the farmers may be assisted with the money which they badly need at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to touch on a matter which does not have any connection with the debate up to this stage, as the debate has been conducted mainly about financial matters up to now. I should like to discuss the labour requirements of the farmer on his farm. Because I am closely connected with the question of the labour of the farmers on their farms, I know for a fact that farmers do not actually have a shortage of labour but that there is a particularly poor distribution of labour on the farms of the farmers. One of the contributory factors to this poor distribution of labour is in fact that there are better facilities for the Bantu workers in cities. One of these facilities is, for example, proper housing with which Bantu are provided in the cities but not in the rural areas. I am aware of the fact that this Department has had this matter investigated, i.e. the housing of Bantu in the rural areas. I am also aware of the fact that this commission has reported.

I now want to make the request that attention be given to that report so as to make it possible for those housing facilities to be established on the farms of the farmers. A concession should be made to farmers just as a concession is made in the cities in order to enable employers to provide housing for their employees. Similarly a concession should be made to the agricultural industry to enable it to provide proper housing for its employees so as to create an attraction which will draw labour back to the rural areas. In this regard I want to make a special plea that if this concession is made in respect of housing for labourers, it should be made on the same basis as in the case of assistance given in respect of soil conservation. This is a liability as far as the farm is concerned but not necessarily as far as the farmer is concerned. This may be a long-term liability as regards the farm so that it will still be the liability of the next two or three owners. In that case it will in fact be a liability as regards the farm and not as regards the individual farmer.

I am only too well aware of the fact that the farmer has many liabilities at the moment. We do not want a kind of loan such as a crop loan, which is a short-term loan. In this case it has to extend over a very long period. In this connection I also want to make a plea to the farmers of South Africa, in view of the fact that there is such a bottleneck at present as regards labour, that they should make greater use of the facilities provided by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development in this regard. Tribal labour bureaux have been established where farmers can now recruit their labour. They can have their Bantu employees brought from the tribal areas to the rural areas and employ them there for a year. Thereafter they will be able to return to the Bantu areas. We know that the Bantu who are not in the homelands at the present time, are very particular as far as employment is concerned. They want to do certain types of work only and the result is that they are not very keen to work in the agricultural industry and that they abscond to the industries in cities. If more labourers are recruited from the tribal bureaux we shall eventually have the position that that labour will be more stable, stable in the sense that there will not be any wandering or absconding. If a Bantu absconds the farmer can approach the tribal bureau as the tribal bureau will know what has become of him. He is in fact under the control of his own tribal authority and therefore he will be a much more stable worker than the person who works in the rural areas and who can simply wander from one employer to another.

If more use is made of the tribal bureaux this will gradually lead to a realization amongst the many vagrants in the white areas that work for them is becoming progressively scarcer. Then in due course they will also go to the tribal bureaux. They will report to their tribes for work and the farmers will be able to recruit them from there. Last year foreign Bantu labourers rendered South Africa a great service in respect of our large mealie crop. We were able to recruit large numbers of Bantu labourers in Basutoland to help harvesting the crop in the Eastern Free State. We also recruited large numbers in Botswana to harvest the crop in the Western Transvaal and the Western Free State. Labourers were also recruited in Swaziland and in the Portuguese territories to do this work. It is possible to arrange all these things properly, but then farmers also have a duty to make use of their local labour bureaux. They should also see to it that all their labourers are registered and should not simply employ a labourer. They should fulfil their obligations in this regard.

I want to express one last idea in connection with the housing of these labourers. There is one matter to which the agricultural industry will have to give proper consideration and that is the remuneration of labourers. I do not want to plead for higher wages, but I do want to plead for better relations between employers and employees. If these relations are what they should be, it would be easier for those farmers to obtain their labour. We should not think that a large labour force is a Cheap labour force. We should rather look for quality labour and if the right relations exist between employers and employees, it will be possible to obtain that quality labour. There is a system which the Department of Bantu Administration and Development has introduced to ensure stability and continuity of labour, according to which an employer can sign a re-employment card when he has a reliable worker whom he has recruited through a tribal bureau and obtain the services of the same employee at a later stage if he is a fine worker.

I am sorry to have to introduce a slightly different subject. I want to talk to the hon. the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Lands. I want to discuss with him the position of the Coloured people at Witsands, beyond Kommetjie. This hon. Minister was responsible for giving a white man a lease on a piece of land falling within the Coloured area there. The divisional council discussed this matter in open council, and I made it my business to acquaint myself with the details. Briefly the position is that in 1959 the divisional council, in terms of the Separate Amenities Act, decided to set aside certain separate beach amenities for Coloureds at Witsands. Subsequently the department inquired whether they had made the necessary regulations, which they were required to do. In correspondence the department pointed out that for the purposes of the Separate Amenities Act, the divisional council was in control of the seashore. Everything was fine in the garden and everybody thought that from then on, everything would go smoothly. Subsequently, however, a certain white man appeared and started a fish export business on a piece of land abutting the coloured beach He went in for the catching and exporting live crayfish.

Order! Can the hon. member tell me what this has to do with agriculture?

It has to do with land tenure. I myself had great difficulty in determining which Minister was responsible for this. I can assure you that this hon. Minister is the right Minister.

Is this a strip of land or is it an island?

I shall deal with that aspect. As I was saying, this particular white man set himself up in the business of catching live crayfish to export them. For this purpose he erected tanks and shacks on this piece of land. When a dispute arose between the divisional council and the Department of Land, it came to light that the Minister himself had not complied with the law, which was that he should have advertised his intention to enter into this lease. You will realize, Sir, that if it had been done publicly, there would have been many people desirous of obtaining that lease. It is a most suitable piece of land and crayfish are caught there in large numbers. I understand that the department and the divisional council have since come to some sort of an agreement. The department held that this particular piece of land was an island. Here is the point to which I should like to draw your attention, because this is typical of the Government’s attitude—they tell the Coloured people that they are going to get separate amenities but as soon as it suits a white man to ignore that he is supported by the Government. This is what happened in this instance. Now about the question whether this piece of ground is an island. I have had a look at the opinion expressed by senior counsel engaged by the divisional council. According to the Oxford English Dictionary an island is a piece of land, completely surrounded by water. If the Minister is taking refuge behind the fact that at certain high tides, water comes onto, the beach and goes around the back of the island, necessitating this particular lessee who presently occupies the island, having to build a bridge, and this he is now busy doing; the Minister is wrong. If is not my duty here, this afternoon, to speak for the divisional council. Apparently they have resolved their differences with the Government. I want to speak on behalf of the Coloured community, and say, that this is the type of thing, which militates against harmonious relations between ourselves and the Coloured people. As it is, they get little enough from the Government in the way of facilities. Very few amenities have, as yet, been set aside in the Peninsula and on the coasts near the Peninsula. But on top of that the Government breaks its own laws by failing to advertise the fact that it intended going in for this lease. Counsel in his opinion said, quite clearly, that this piece of land was not an island. As I have said, all definitions of an island in English, are that it is a piece of land completely surrounded by water Not only that; my information is that the Government Hydrographer himself, has indicated that the piece of land in question, is not an island, but portion of the shore. The sea-shore falls within the jurisdiction of the divisional council, by virtue of the notices in the Gazette published from time to time This is the situation at which we now arrive. I have them all here; but in the limited time at my disposal I do not wish to quote them in detail. So, an individual white man, using a track, which is not a public road, with access to his fishing undertaking, ignores the Divisional Council regulations which require proper structures. He gets away with it, because the hon. the Minister is well disposed towards this undertaking. I say that this individual could have caught his fish somewhere else, in a white area, and there would have been no difficulty whatsoever. But, he chooses, with the approval and consent of the Minister of Agriculture, to set himself up in business. My information is that the Minister’s department has been extremely touchy in dealing with the Divisional Council. My business is not with the Divisional Council; my business is to speak on behalf of the Coloured community, who feel very aggrieved. I have made it my business to visit the site. I know that certain members of the Divisional Council were even on the point of taking the Government to court, because they felt so strongly about this matter. However, they realize, as many others do as well, that fighting the Government is an unprofitable undertaking, and they decided to compromise and come to some kind of a settlement, the details of which are of no interest to me. The point I want to establish, and I state it as emphatically as I can, is that the Government is not genuine nor sincere in dealing with the Coloured community. I have discussed matters of this kind on other Votes at various times since I have been here, and I was surprised to find that the Minister of Agriculture himself, is as guilty as some of his colleagues are, in giving concessions to white persons in Coloured areas for various purposes. I say quite frankly that, if the hon the Minister does his job and accepts the responsibility, he would admit that an error was made. He will give the individual notice, and the Coloured persons should be left there in undisturbed occupation of the strip of land, which is known as the ’Witsands Beach

I want to conclude my remarks by saying that the hon. the Minister cannot hide or take refuge behind the theory that because this piece of land is known as Witsands Island, it is an island. This piece of land is part of the sea-shore. Incidentally, the Minister has jurisdiction over the sea-shore, but he is required to observe certain formalities. One is to advertise, which he did not do, and there are a number of lawsuits, which have been settled over the years, which confirm what I now say. The Act reads: “If in the opinion of the Minister such letting, either, is in the interests of the general public or will not seriously affect the general public’s enjoyment of the sea-shore and the sea, he may take certain steps.” The general public is not involved here; it is only one man. I think the hon. the Minister should visit and have a look at the beach to see what a mess there is on that beach, caused by this undertaking. I do hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of what I say, and set a new course in dealing with the leasing of land, particularly where separate amenities for Coloured people are involved. He should not permit white persons to go in there and to set up in business to the detriment of the general public, who are Coloured people in this instance. [Time expired.]

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Karoo in his argument. That is a matter with which the Minister will probably deal.

The story is told of two farmers who were discussing what they would do if they were to win a lottery. One said he would realize all his assets, invest the money on interest and live on his interest. The second farmer said he would keep on farming until he had no more money left. Sir, I am sure that the second farmer must have been a Karoo wool farmer, because that is typical of the approach and love of the Karoo wool farmer to and for his land. One must love the land if one is prepared to battle the elements year after year. One must love the land if one can face droughts playing havoc amongst one’s livestock year after year. One must love the land if one can face the destruction of one’s veld year after year by wind, caterpillars and other plagues; veld one has improved by employing rotational grazing, by erecting fences and by employing other aids. I am admitting today that the wool farmers of the Karoo are having hard times. I realize that because I live amongst them; I am one of them and I know them. But the hon. the Minister realizes what the problems of the wool farmers are as well as I do. I can bear testimony of the sympathetic approach of the hon. the Minister to these problems. For hours and days we considered and discussed possible way of assisting this industry. The United Party alleges that the wool farmers landed in these difficulties through the Government, but that is far from the truth. You will discover what the biggest cause of the problem of the wool farmers is when you refer to page 150 of the Annual Report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing. When you look at Table 5 you will find that producers’ prices in all branches of the agricultural industry increased by between 50 per cent and 70 per cent from 1950 to 1967, for example field crops, horticultural products, summer and winter cereals and dairy products. From 1950 to 1967 the prices of all these products increased by between 50 per cent and 70 per cent at least. But this did not happen in the case of wool. During the past ten years the price of wool only once exceeded the 1950 price of wool, and 1950 was not the year of the wool prices; that was only the next year. During the past ten years the price of wool only once exceeded the price of wool in 1950, and that is the problem of the wool farmer. Now I ask the Opposition what the Government can do as far as the price of wool is concerned? It is a product which is marketed internationally, and the Government has no control over the price of wool.

The second reason why the wool farmer finds himself in this position, is because we have suffered the severest drought we have ever known. The third reason for the wool farmers’ problems is attributable to the high rates of interest. But I just want to say that this Government tried to freeze rates of interest in 1965 and at that time we were attacked by hon. members opposite and decried by the Agricultural Union for having done so. That proves that we were concerned about this matter even at that time, but hon. members opposite who are so ready with their criticism on the Government in regard to this matter to-day, were the ones who decried us about it at that time. I do not want to criticize only, as the Opposition wants to do. They do not get to grips with the problem and do not devise positive plans which may possibly assist the wool farmer.

No. we have done so.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister, as he already knows, that the survival of the wool farmer in the Karoo—and I am speaking for the most part of the Karoo—is essential for the economic structure of our country. In the first place wool earns more foreign exchange for South African than any other branch of agriculture does. In 1967 the amount was R120 million and that was during a severe drought. In the second place these people deserve assistance as we cannot allow farmers to disappear from that area of thousands of square miles. I want to suggest to the Minister that the salvation of the wool farmer is to be found in the stabilization of the wool price—I realize that I am skating on very thin ice at the moment—but I feel that the only salvation will be to subsidize wool prices. I realize what the implications and the problems of this are, but I mention it as a suggestion in an attempt to find a solution so as to ensure further tangible assistance to these farmers because they deserve such assistance.

In conclusion I just want to say that the wool farmers of South Africa know that this Government is sympathetic towards them. I can testify to the fact that the hon. the Minister is doing everything within his power to assist the wool farmers, but it is not such an easy matter to determine the form such assistance should take. If one assists one branch of the farming industry, one has to assist other industries as well. I leave this suggestion with the hon. the Minister for his consideration, however, because I feel that this matter is one which can only be rectified if the wool farmer can obtain a better price for his wool.

In this debate we have been listening to the Opposition, and the discordant note which they have been striking, is the same as that which they have been striking all over the country, namely that very little or actually nothing is being done for the agricultural industry by the Government. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition issued a statement on 19th May, as reported in The Sunday Times, in which he said—

Now I hope that those are not the experts sitting here—

Hear, hear!

They cry. “Hear, hear!”, but if any of them had taken the trouble to consult the Report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, he would have seen that the total gross income of the farmers of South Africa was R376.2 million in 1947-’48. This “nothing” which was done for the farmers caused the gross income to increase to R 1,370.1 million in the year 1966-’67. If that is nothing, one can understand how those hon. members make their analyses. [Interjections.]

But I do not want to confine myself to the negative statements of hon. members, because I think their intention is to sow suspicion amongst the farmers. They are the breed of politicians who throw a stone into a bush to see whether they cannot hit anything, to see whether some farmer or other will not become a supporter of theirs and say that the United Party is now prepared, after all these years, to give farmers their rightful share whereas they do not receive that from the Government.

But I am not on my feet to discuss that. I am on my feet to discuss something practical, to suggest something which in point of fact is no new principle in our country, as it is already being applied in certain regions. I think any farmer in our country is aware of the fact that the prices of agricultural products are determined on a basis of averages. These averages are calculated on the basis of farmers farming in regions which are in the first place most suitable for that particular kind of farming and in other regions which are less suitable for that kind of farming. In this way an average is obtained according to which the price is eventually determined. In other words, one will always find a group of farmers who are producing below the average price, and they are the ones who actually experience problems in connection with the income they derive from their agricultural products. Now I wonder, if one may put this question to nobody in particular, whether the time has not arrived for the Department and the Government to start giving consideration to telling farmers with what to farm on specific farms. I say this is no new principle. It is already being applied in connection with sugar and bark products, and it is being applied on certain settlements. We find that this has the result that the eventual risk being run by the farmer is much smaller because the technical analysis of the conditions and of the cultivation methods is such that maximum benefit can be derived from the investigations which have been instituted.

I should like to refer in particular to the success the Americans have achieved with this system of telling a farmer what he may produce and what he may not produce. As far as the production of ground-nuts is concerned, they found in America that the most productive yield per acre is obtained by planting ground-nuts at intervals of 2 inches to 2½ inches in rows which are 24 inches apart. By planting ground-nuts in that way and by treating them, they eventually succeeded in producing 3,098 lbs., or plus minus 1½ tons, per acre. When one consults the report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, one finds that plus minus 3 tons of groundnuts can also be produced in our country, but under irrigation, in certain areas of the country. The price in America for ground-nuts of a better quality, is approximately R12.95 per 100 lbs.; i.e., a farmer is able to make an income of R259 from one acre which he cultivates. That is gross income, and it also refers to the Valencia type. Then we find, seeing that the American Government has stipulated that they are prepared to guarantee the price to a farmer who has a farm of approximately 25 to 30 acres on which he cultivates groundnuts, that that farmer is able to make an annual gross income of R7,770 on that land.

Yes, but their Government is not like ours.

Wait a minute. Do not interrupt me. First go and learn your alphabet. In order to derive the maximum net income from this gross yield of theirs, they investigated different methods of processing and handling. Do you know, Sir, that as far as the harvesting of the crop is concerned, the technical department in America has determined on the experimental stations where they carry out these experiments, that they are able to reduce labour costs from 16.94 dollars per acre to 4.90 dollars per acre. In other words, they have decreased labour costs by three-quarters. The result of this is that they have brought about a saving of R 132.30 per 30 acres, i.e. per farming unit. As a result of that saving they have been able to purchase other machinery so as to decrease, for example, drying and handling costs, with the result that a farmer in America who has 30 acres under ground-nuts, can rely on a net income of approximately R6,000 per annum under the American system, according to which the price is guaranteed in those parts which are suitable for the cultivation of ground-nuts.

During this debate hon. members of the Opposition dwelled on the topic of mealie prices, wool prices, etc., with which the farmers were allegedly dissatisfied, but what would happen if we simply cultivated large parts of the country or simply introduced sheep farming in large parts of the country without having regard to the quality of the product and the production per unit or per acre? We would eventually find that the production costs would increase to such an extent that farming would be totally unprofitable, and that the farmer would have to approach the State for assistance.

The final statement I want to make is that the Department, along with the Minister, will have to give consideration to the question whether the time has not arrived for extending the system which is already in operation in connection with farm planning and in terms of which they may tell a farmer when he may burn his veld and when he may not do so. The freedom of the farmer on his farm has already been restricted; the Department may tell him: “You must have so many camps in which you must apply rotational grazing.” During the debate on agriculture and in earlier debates on financial matters, we have already heard the plea that farmers should not be assisted unless their farms have already been planned. I do not want to express an opinion in this regard, but I feel that if the farmer receives assistance from the State, the State at least ought to have the assurance that the farmer will farm according to the system approved by the State in co-operation with the soil conservation committees. The State will then be able to tell a farmer: “We are of the opinion that on this farm of so many morgen, if you produce this or that product, you will have a maximum income of so much if you farm according to the direction of the Department which are based on investigations.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the agricultural industry continues to he one of the four mainstays of our national economy. Therefore we need to give serious consideration from time to time to the proper utilization and conservation of our agricultural land. It is possible to approach this problem from various angles, but to-day I once again want to discuss the uneconomic subdivision of our agricultural land and more particularly the subdivision of our agricultural land surrounding our cities into plots of 25 to 100 morgen. This fragmentation of our agricultural land is assuming alarming proportions at present. Some of our best farms in the vicinity of our towns and cities are fragmented into small farms of 25 to 100 morgen. The truth about this fragmentation is not the story which is being told that people would like to have their own piece of land and that this provides in a need; the truth is that a number of land speculators are behind this fragmentation. It has become a very profitable source of income for land speculators. At present many financing and investment companies are established for the purpose of buying farms and dividing them into small pieces of land to be sold on the hire-purchase system. What happens in practice? The land speculators look for a large piece of land, conveniently situated near a town. They are not interested in whether the land is an economic farming unit or whether it is a good farm. The factors in which they are interested, are the strategic situation of the farm, the scenic beauty in that vicinity and whether it will attract buyers. They then employ a surveyor to subdivide the land into small pieces. They make provision for roads which look very fine and neat on the surveyor’s map, but once the buyers have purchased the land they have to drive through the veld and make their own way to their piece of land. The land speculators immediately publish beautiful advertisements in which they include a diagram of the subdivided land, and they advertise the small farms which are offered for sale on very easy terms; they advertise that land as the best of agricultural land and they draw a very fine picture of the possibilities. According to them the possibilities are virtually unlimited. The poor buyer has to sign a deed of sale and in that deed of sale the seller is protected very well. As a matter of fact, he gets all the protection and in terms of that deed of sale he can apparently do anything except shoot the buyer. The buyer has to erect fences around the property immediately; he has to make provision for a house. He usually starts by building a garage and a small outside room. The story always is that he will build on at a later stage and that he will build a fine big house, but he never gets that far. The buyer then accommodates his wife and children in the garage and in the outside room and there they have to remain while the buyer continues working in the city to be able to pay off the plot. When he starts farming, he may perhaps buy a second-hand tractor, a plough and a few other implements He also has to make provision for a borehole, a pump and engine and everything he needs in this regard, and these articles are also bought on hire purchase After the first year, when the crops have to be harvested, the buyer finds that the crops are not so profitable as he has initially been told they would be and that his farming is a hopeless failure. Then only do his problems start. He has to buy seed, fuel, fertilizer and all those things; he has to pay for his labour; then the plagues and pests come which he also has to combat and he does not have the necessary funds to do so. Some of these buyers throw in the towel after the first year, but a few of them persevere for another year and try again only to discover once again that it is not profitable to farm on a small dry piece of land of 25 morgen. The outcome is that the buyer sells his implements and his tractor for a mere song. He virtually gives them away and moves back to the city to look for work. In the deed of sale which he signed originally, there is a very good forfeiture clause, with the result that the seller is able to take the plot back after a period of one or two months and to look for a next victim. We also find the group of buyers who simply buy these plots for the sake of speculating. They buy the plots, pay the purchase price, bring about no improvements whatsoever and immediately look for another buyer on their terms. The social evils of these plots are the following: We find in the vicinity of our cities small, poor dwellings in which people live in straitened circumstances with the result that the Church and the State have to intervene to assist these people. They usually are the ones who most often apply for school bursaries and other assistance. But social evils are not the only ones associated with these plots or small farms. Proper physico-biological farm-planning and the application of sound conservation measures on these plots are made difficult and rendered virtually impossible. When the soil conservation committee wants to apply its soil conservation measures, it finds it difficult, in the first place, to find the buyer for often there are only Bantu on the land who have to struggle along, and when the committee eventually traces the buyer, it finds that that buyer has sold to a next owner. They (the members of the committee) never reach the stage of putting their measures into operation. The buyers who do in fact live on the land, these small farmers, make the task of the soil conservation committee even more difficult, in the sense that they construct furrows and banks on their plots to divert the flood waters from their pieces of cultivated land, but usually they divert it in such a way that the water flows to the land of his neighbour and washes away his roads and pieces of cultivated land They also plough, against the recommendation of the committee, in the hollows, and you can realize, Mr Chairman, what friction that causes. This immediately destroys the natural sponges and this causes many difficulties. They have too little land, of course, and they want to plough every inch of land which they can plough, with the result that they leave no land for strips of grass and water-drains. They also disregard the grazing measures as laid down in the district plan of that district. This too makes the task of soil conservation more difficult. But that is not all. The droughts we have experienced in recent times, have had the result that these people now look for another way out. They would like to irrigate; they sink up to three bore-holes on one plot of 25 morgen. They exhaust the subterranean water supplies as fast as they can. They over-capitalize that land and in the end they cannot make a living and have to abandon everything. Mr. Chairman, these small pieces of land also rob us of good manpower and good soil which can be utilized properly by a good farmer who owns a larger unit. These small units also promote inflation. Just consider at what prices those plots are sold. Usually large farms are bought at a price varying from R30 to R60 per morgen After the farm has been subdivided, small pieces of 25 morgen are sold for R4,000 which is equal to R160 per morgen Those people have to pay interest while they are paying off the purchase price, and the result is that that land in the end costs them an amount which varies between approximately R260 and R300 per morgen. That is why I am of the opinion that this fragmentation of land promotes inflation to a large extent. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Vryheid complained of the “wanklanke” which came from this side of the House. Obviously he was provoked by the previous speaker on his side, the hon. member for Graaff Reinet, with his appeal for a subsidy for wool. Immediately after the speech by the hon. member for Vryheid, another hon. member on that side dealt with the problems of the small plotholder. Sir, this is an interesting situation with which the hon. the Minister will no doubt deal. The hon member for Vryheid also tried to draw a comparison between the agricultural production figure in 1947 and the present figure Sir, I do not know what he was trying to prove but he tried to draw a comparison between the gross product from agriculture, in rands, and the gross product to-day. He ignored devaluation but, above all, he ignored production costs. I wonder if he will tell us that production costs are the same now as they were in 1947?

It is in the same report.

Yes, it is in the same report. Is the cost of living the same; is money worth the same? Is the farmer getting three times as much, comparatively, and living three times as well as he was in 1947? The answer came from the hon. member for Graaff Reinet. He just did not finish the story with which he started his speech, the story of the lottery prize winners—the one who would invest his money, and the other who would just go on farming until his money was finished. That story had a tail. He should have said, “Ek sal aanhou boer totdat die geld op is of totdat ons’n nuwe Regering kry”.

But I want to return to the hon. the Deputy Minister and tell him that he should not provoke me. I am a man of peace, and he knows that. He knows that I do not like attacking and criticizing people. However, after the immoderate, almost hysterical attack which the hon. the Deputy Minister made on me yesterday even I felt provoked. Yesterday he accused me of spreading lies. I have his Hansard here and according to that he made four specific charges against me. It is with these that I want to deal. In the first place the hon. the Deputy Minister said—

He refers here to one of the Government’s agricultural engineers—

This is supposed to be the first lie I told. The hon. the Deputy Minister then asked: “Wat is die werklike feite?” He then goes on to criticize the person concerned. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has seen the seven page letter which this person wrote to the Director of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services before he resigned. In this he says, inter alia: “I am depressed and my health has been affected”. If that is not frustration I should like to know what frustration is. Here we have seven pages of complaints concerning the way in which he has been treated. But the hon. the Deputy Minister accused me of telling an untruth when I said that this person was frustrated, this person who himself stated that he was depressed and that his health had been affected. In this letter he refers to “humiliation”. But the hon. the Deputy Minister after accusing me of telling an untruth himself went on to say that “Hy het toe op 25 Mei 1962 gevra om van sy kontrak onthef te word”. Is that not a resignation? So, in setting out his first complaint against me the hon. the Deputy Minister merely confirmed what I had stated to be the position.

He then went on to refer to three challenges I was supposed to have issued to him and said they were untrue. But the hon. the Deputy Minister failed to say what it was I challenged him about. I challenged the hon. the Deputy Minister to deny that officers of the Department had been forbidden to propagate various things. He did not deny that. He quoted three articles, three pamphlets; but he did not deny it. Let me ask him now across the floor of the House now whether all officers are allowed to propagate those things I mentioned in my speech?

Of course they are.

Now I know. Then I suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister tells that to some of his officials. I have notes here made on the 27th January, 11 points and seven of them I quoted in this House on the 7th February. The information given to me was confirmed in a letter to me by the officer who resigned. I am glad the hon. the Deputy Minister now says that that is not the position. The Deputy Minister dealt with three of the seven points I raised: with re-refined oil, retreads and dry-air filters.

And also with the others.

He did not deal with surface hardening, with my allegation about experiments in Natal which were stopped, of instructionsߪ[Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister has had his chance. He made a speech and subsequently made another one. If he wanted to he should have dealt with these matters at the time. He did not deal with my claim that farmers could not be advised to claim against suppliers. He did not deal with my case of a farmer who was saved an unnecessary purchase yet the officer was criticized for doing that. He did not deal with my complaint about consultation with technical research experts of private firms. I accept then that in regard to the three matters which the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with, I was either misinformed by the official or else that he did not know what he was entitled to do. But what a shocking condemnation then of the Deputy Minister, because when he replied to me on the 15th February, not immediately but after a few other speeches had been made, during which time he could have checked with the Department, what did he say then? He said the following (Hansard, column 595)—

On the 15th February I raised seven points and he said the Department would not deal with these matters, that it was against their policy. He comes back now in May and says this was wrong. Therefore the hon. the Deputy Minister wrongly attacked me in February. In point of fact, the officers were allowed to do the things I advocated. Were they, or were they not? Either they were allowed to advocate these things in February in which case the Minister did not then know What he was talking about, or they were not allowed to do it and the Deputy Minister does not know what he is talking about now. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot first of all present a completely wrong picture of what I said on the 15th February, and say they are not prepared to advocate these various processes with which I dealt. Yet now he comes back two months later and accuses me of misleading the House for stating that officials were not allowed to advocate things which he then said they would not advocate and which he now says they are in fact allowed to advocate. The Deputy Minister has put himself in the position where he now has to swallow everything for which he attacked me in February. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I said here on 15th February, namely that this Department will not act as a sales agent for any individual company in South Africa. This Department will not act in this way. Added to that there is the fact that the hon. member made an incorrect statement right at the outset and again now. When I said in the House the other day that he had told an untruth, I did not say it with reference to the resignation of a person. What I did say was that he had obtained that information from a person who had asked on 25th May, 1962, to be relieved of his position and his contract. I now want the hon. House to listen to this. The hon. member said on the 15th, “I now challenge the Minister”. He challenged me and said that the Government, the Department and the Department’s extension officers were prohibited from telling the farmers, in the first place, that re-refined oil could be used. I said this was an untruth. Here I have the reprint from Farming in South Africa, of which I had 100,000 copies printed, and on page 17 we see an article under the heading “Oil for your tractor,” written by J. F. van Staden, Division of Agricultural Mechanization and Engineering. One hundred thousand copies of this article are therefore being sent to the farmers of South Africa and they are being informed that this re-refined oil is recommended by us for certain purposes. We also tell the farmer how to use it. But then the hon. member comes along here and says that he challenges the Minister to deny that we prohibit our people from recommending this type of oil, while we are in fact sending out 100,000 reprints to our farmers to recommend it. Surely it is an untruth that the hon. member is telling.

I now come to the second example. On 15th February the hon. member said here that he challenged the Minister to deny that our officials were prohibited from recommending retreaded tyres to the farmers. In this same publication of which 100,000 copies were reprinted, there is an article by J. J. Bruwer under the heading “Get the best service from your tractor tyres”. A graph in respect of the service given by new tyres and by retreaded tyres appears in this article, and we read the following—

We are therefore sending out 100,000 pamphlets to the farmers in which we tell them, “If you want to save on tractor costs and production costs, use retreaded tyres if the walls are still in good condition”. Yet the hon. member told the House on 15th February that the officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services were prohibited from recommending retreaded tyres. Surely that is an infamous untruth. It is nothing but an untruth.

I can quote further examples, which we can analyse one by one. The hon. member said that I had not used all seven the other day. But one cannot deal with all seven within the space of ten minutes. Let me mention another example. He said that the Department and the officials were prohibited from recommending dry air-filters—they had to recommend only oil bath air-filters. In the reprint mentioned there is a graph indicating the life of an oil bath air-filter and the life of a dry air-filter. It is indicated that one should use both, and not one only, in certain dusty conditions, while the dry air-filter can be used as effectively in conditions in which one does not have dust and sandy soil, but clayey soil. This is therefore a third example of the absolute untruths which are told here. In the same way I can analyse the other cases which the hon. member mentioned.

The hon. member also referred to the hardening of ploughshares and other plough parts. Let me tell the hon. member what the problem there is. Here I have a photostatic copy of The Farmers Weekly of 7th June, 1961. The official supplying the information here, gives the details in this regard. The only reason why the Department reprimanded the frustrated official to whom the hon. member referred, namely Mr. Francis, is that he held luncheon parties with the representatives of individual companies and did not return to his office in the afternoons. The Department’s work was not being done, and in addition he allowed photographs to be published of himself in the company of the people of a particular company, and he had the photographs published as being of the company which he recommended to South Africa. In such cases it is surely the duty of the Department to reprimand such officials and to say to them, “After all, you do have certain office hours; you have to return to your office after lunch, and you must not accord preferential treatment to any particular firm because you had a good lunch with them. You must not have reports published in the Press on your own initiative without the knowledge of the head of your section and without the necessary tests having been carried out to confirm the statements published in those Press reports.” That, is why I said, and I repeat it, that this Department will not act as advertisers or sales agents for individuals in South Africa. This Department is not going to allow itself to be embarrassed. A circular has been sent to all its officials that no firm should receive preferential treatment over any other in South Africa. This Department is a department which undertakes research and provides guidance in general, and all companies and firms are treated on the same basis. I repeat: This hon. member misled the House on the 15th with seven challenges. It was not a ten-minute speech.

There were eight challenges.

The eighth only related to a frustrated official who had resigned. But that official resigned because the Department cannot afford having an official act in an undisciplined way. This matter will not do this hon. member any good. I now want to tell the hon. member this: This is typical of United Party members who want to discuss agricultural matters and know nothing about them. That is why they use information obtained from a person who left the Department as a frustrated individual. That official supplied information to him because he was annoyed and thought that he could embarrass the Department. What happens now? Now the hon. member is embarrassed and has burnt his fingers. What is the result now? If in future the hon. member again wants to make out a case in the House of Assembly in regard to matters of this kind, I shall take it with a large pinch of salt, and I will not know whether I can believe any of it.

Why did you not know it on the 15th?

I spoke about a matter of principle on the 15th. I repeat once again that this Department is not a sales agent for any company.

But nobody said that.

With his plea on the 15th the hon. member tried to benefit certain concerns because one official had gone around visiting them.

I say that is untrue. Do not twist my words.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon member for Durban (Point) say to the Deputy Minister: “Do not twist my words”? I am only asking for your ruling.

If he says “deliberately”, it is not allowed.

I repeat, and I want to point out to the House—and I am not only doing so because the hon. member made that statement—that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is prepared at all times to make the results of research available in the widest field if it is to the benefit of agriculture in South Africa. If it publishes them in that way, it also expects its officials to disseminate them by way of information. [Time expired.]

I cannot react to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said. Therefore I have no alternative but to follow up what was said by the previous speaker. If I were to do so, however, I would say certain things which my hon. friend opposite would not like very much. But I nevertheless want to tell him one thing: I am glad that he was not in Swellendam during the election.

Then you would have lost.

His performance here this afternoon most definitely is proof to us that the opposite of his interjection would have been true and that the victory would have been even more resounding. One thing is sure: I cannot understand how the United Party farmers of Swellendam are still able, to keep their courage up and to go on farming after the alarming tales they have heard from hon. members of the agricultural group of the United Party in this House, as well as from members of other councils. If, after all the stories I have heard there, I had to be as despondent as a supporter of the United Party who believes those stories, I would have been unable to face the future. I cannot see how such a man can still be able to draw inspiration from circumstances and can see any future for himself.

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry. A cold affects one’s voice and surely hon. members cannot hold that against me.

I did not say that you were talking too softly; you are talking nonsense.

Oh, is that the trouble? Let me talk nonsense as far as I can. Hon. members opposite often tend to follow that example, particularly the hon. member who has just made the interjection. It is said that there are approximately 90,000 farmers in South Africa. I represent approximately 2,090 of that 90,000. The constituency I represent is regarded as an agricultural constituency through and through. In looking back on an election such as the one we had not so long ago and in considering the extent to which farmers in that constituency were subjected to attacks of despondence, i.e. the spirit in which the Opposition acted, I can honestly say that I feel that the Opposition most definitely did not do the farmers any favour. I say this because any person who finds himself in difficult circumstances may definitely expect people with whom he has sympathy to have sympathy with him as well and to address a word of encouragement to him from time to time. This unfortunately does not happen. In considering the fact that the responsibility of feeding our nation rests on approximately one-tenth of our population, I cannot help but say that I am proud of the farmers of Swellendam for what they have achieved. But I want to say more than this. I want to elaborate on this. I want to say that hon. members on this side of the House are proud of the farmers of South Africa for what they achieved in the past, for what they are achieving at present and for what they will achieve in future. We are grateful to the farmers for the success they are achieving in spite of everything and in spite of the Opposition in fulfilling their primary duty to South Africa, i.e. to feed this nation of ours. We are grateful to them for succeeding in the production of so much food that in addition to what is needed to feed the nation, sufficient is left for export. Thus they pay for the food which has to be imported. In the third place we are proud of the South African farmer’s success in ranking amongst our principal industries in the country as an exporter and an earner of foreign exchange. Another reason for pride is that the farmer of South Africa succeeds in feeding this nation at a price which is amongst the lowest in the world. In other words, the farmer of South Africa succeeds in providing the cities with food at a cheap price. But that is not all. They also succeed—and this is another reason for pride—in providing not only food but quality food, also for the export market, and of this we may rightly be proud.

But if we take a general view of agriculture as a whole and if we take a somewhat wider view of agriculture than the farmers only, we have every reason to be proud of the quality of the work which is done by the South African agricultural research workers, the agricultural scientists, the agricultural educationists and the agricultural administrative and extension officers. When we have regard to the fact that most of them come from farms, we have reason to be proud of our farmers’ sons and daughters who are engaged in these services. I have in mind the potential which this holds and I just want to give one simple example. If the geneticists succeed in carrying out in practice what they have already proved possible in theory, i.e. to grow a mealie which by itself will provide a balanced diet, I think we have every reason to be proud of this tremendous achievement in anticipation as well as of what our research workers are trying to achieve for our country. But we have yet another reason for pride. I think we have reason to be proud of our South African agricultural legislation. I feel convinced that even the most sour hon. member opposite will agree with me as far as this is concerned. South Africa owes the South African farmer an enormous debt of gratitude because he has been able to render these services to the population and because he is such an asset to South Africa and because he has yet been able to create for himself a standard of living which farmers in all countries can envy him. This fact is most certainly true when we look at hon. members opposite who are farmers. At times I find it comical and at other times really ironical to hear farmers opposite complaining and making a fuss while, they themselves are prosperous and progressive farmers. This strongly reminds me of the man who was carrying a white loaf under his arm while he was complaining that he had no food to eat. No, in spite of everything we have reason to be proud of our South African farmer as well as of his judgment, I should like to refer to their political judgment as well. They have succeeded in depopulating virtually all rural areas of the United Party and they have not found it difficult to do so. We are proud of our farmers. They are developing and growing along with South Africa as a whole, not only in the economic field, but in all other fields. Scholastically modern farming methods and techniques demand a better trained farmer. Economically modern farming demands a businessman. Successful farming and South Africa demand training, courage and initiative of the farmer. The South African farmer has that courage. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address a few words to the hon. member for Swellendam. Of course, he has not been in this House for long and therefore one does not want to worry him too much, since the signs of the times indicate that he will perhaps not be with us for any great length of time. However, that was merely by the way. What worries me about him, is the following: He mentioned all the things of which he was proud and he referred to the farmers who had done this and that. But not once did he state that he was proud of the Government. He also said that there was a second thing of which he was proud, namely the wonderful agricultural legislation in this country. I, too, am proud of that. But now I shall do what that hon. member failed to do. I want to mention the four greatest pieces of legislation that have been piloted through this House in regard to the farming industry. They are the Co-operative Societies Act, the Marketing Act, the Soil Conservation Act and the Farmers’ Assistance Act. But these are all United Party Acts. If it had not been for this UP. legislation, the hon. the Deputy Minister and I would no longer have been solvent. He knows it. [Interjections.] Under the U.P. Government the hon. the Deputy Minister was still a farmer, but does he still farm to-day? Where does he farm now? [Interjections.] I am not referring to uneconomic units now. I am now referring to a farmer who makes his living out of farming.

Do you make your living out of farming?

Yes, I do, and it is very difficult to do so under this Government. But I shall tell you, Sir, why it is that the farmers are struggling so. I listened very attentively to the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon. His trouble is that he lacks logic. In the first place, he quoted from the Financial Mail. He said that the Financial Mail was criticizing the Government because it was allegedly spending too much in the form of assistance to farmers. Then he said: Look at what the United Party is doing now. We have less to do with the Financial Mail than the hon. the Deputy Minister has to do with the South African Observer, and he has practically nothing to do with the latter. Then, having made this quotation so as to adopt one course, he turned round and adopted another course. Then he quoted a passage in regard to the way the farmers were paying off their debts. According to him that was why things were going very well with the farmers at present. Now I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a frank question. If, in quoting that passage, it was not his aim to try to prove that things were going well with the farmers, why then did he do so? If that was his aim, I want to ask him the following question across the floor of this House: Are things going as well with the farmers as he wanted to give out? [Interjections.] We must stop using this type of absurd logic. I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether things are going well with the farmers.

They are not the beggars you want to make them out to be.

I want to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the farmers are doing well at present. [Interjections.]

It seems to me you are joining the choir.

In any case, the choir is singing off-key (vals).

Order! The hon. member may not say that those hon. members are “false” in any case.

No, Mr. Chairman, I said that the choir opposite was singing off-key. They are singing so off-key, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot even blame you for not having been able to hear what they were saying. But I still want a reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do not like the hon. the Deputy Minister’s evasive tactics in this regard. He must tell me whether he is satisfied that things are going well with the farmers.

Do you still beat your wife?

No, I have never beaten my wife. I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is satisfied that the farmers are doing well. Why does he not want to answer me? Why is he speechless? No, the logic we have nowadays is simply going too far. But if we turn round and say that things are not going well with the farmers, he is not angry with himself and with the Government because he is not doing anything for the farmers, but he is angry with us because we say that things are going badly with the farmers. The fact that it is their fault that it is going badly with the farmers, does not matter. They are just like UNO. We catch a lot of saboteurs here and we throw them into gaol—these are the people who come here to murder other people—and then UNO is not angry with those people for having come here to murder others; they are angry with the judges for having convicted them. Mr. Chairman, have you ever heard such a thing in your life? Secondly, the hon. the Minister says that we are paying too much for land. He said that land prices were too high. He is the very Minister who is pushing up land prices to that extent. I want to ask him what he paid for the land he bought for the Bantu. Was that price too high or too low? [Interjections.] No. we must reach finality. Did the Minister pay too little or too much?

You must raise that matter with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Does that hon. Deputy Minister have no say in the Cabinet as a whole? No, that is what the Minister does. If, owing to his love of the soil, a farmer pays a little too much for a farm, then he is a criminal, but if this Government, owing to their love of the Bantu, pay too much for land, then this Government is a hero. No, we know those stories.

Now I come to the hon. member for Prieska who said that he had to fill in a form as an indigent farmer. I do not really know what the word “indigent” means. He said it was in the olden days. I think there was such a form at the time, but it does not matter. But, Sir, you and I who have been in politics for a long time, will recall a man named Naas Raubenheimer. He told me that he attended a political meeting once. The meeting was held by the late Dr. Malan in the days of the old Nationalist Government, and on that occasion all the farmers shouted: “Do something for the farmers!” Then Dr. Malan said that they had done this and that for the farmers and that things were going well with the farmers, and the farmers shouted that that was not true. Then Naas Raubenheimer stood up and said: “Doctor, when you said that things were going well with the farmers, it seemed to me as though the people here in Vryburg did not believe you, but I believe you, on one condition, namely that the next time I tell a lie, you will at least believe me, too.” I want to tell the hon. member for Prieska that I remember those times to which he referred. What gave birth to the United Party if it was not the distress of the farmers caused by the Nationalist Party? [Laughter.] Where were those hon. members who are laughing so heartily now? I remember, and you may ask the hon. member for Stellenbosch. He knows what he and I went through. No, these new-rich millionaires were just as poor as I was and they struggled as much as I did under the Nationalist Government. The Minister, Mr. Dirkie Uys, knows what I am talking about. He knows that he and I suffered extreme hardships in those times. [Interjections.]

But I want to touch upon another matter. The hon. member for Heilbron said a few words about the Bantu. Of course, we cannot debate anything in this House without reference being made to the Bantu and the Coloureds, and the hon. member for Heilbron simply could not keep quiet. When we were still discussing farming matters, he was talking about Bantu Administration. And what was the sum total of his contribution? The farmer remains a criminal, because he does not build fine enough houses for his workers. His second point was that the farmer should obtain his workers from the tribal recruitment office. Does the hon. member know what he is talking about? If one farms in the Western Province, one may not keep one’s Bantu worker for longer than a year and then he has to go back again. This afternoon I was glad to hear from the hon. member—for he has a great deal of say there—that these same Bantu could return again, at once. But if he has merely to undertake this train journey, is this an agreement or a concoction between the Department of Bantu Administration and the Railways in order to make the Budget balance? Why should I pay the train fare of a person who does not want to go there? But I am being forced to pay R125 for ten Bantu, just for the privilege of getting them here, because once they have gone back, they can come back to me again. For each Bantu I have to pay R25 per annum to the Railways for the privilege of having him here. [Time expired.]

I have often wondered why in these debates on agriculture urban M.P.s should speak on behalf of the farmers. To-day this has once again become very clear to me. In general the farmers are sensible people. They do not like listening to people talking rubbish, as the hon. member for Sea Point has just done, and that is why they do not send such people to this House. That hon. member spoke here to-day as the hon. Senator Reddie Louw spoke in Namaqualand at a recent meeting. Now I just want to tell you, Sir, that one day I want to invite the entire U.P. caucus to come to our caucus, and then I shall play them a tape, which I happen to have in my posession, of a meeting held by the hon. Senator Louw in my constituency. In particular I want to invite the hon. member for Wynberg and those hon. members to come along. I wonder what they would say. I think they would say: But, surely, the person speaking there must be one of the most venomous racialists South Africa has ever had. I am thinking specifically of what he said to the farmers there. What he took very much amiss of me, was that during a flood I had gone to the farmers and said: “Start now and do your repairs; the Government will look after you.” He said that it was scandalous that a person could go to those poor, stricken farmers, and all he could say to them was that they should start repairing their own furrows in the meantime. Sir, I shall play that recording one day. It is really a priceless speech to listen to. I think you would enjoy yourself immensely.

Was Wylie not there as well?

Yes, he will be going there one of these days.

The hon. member told us here that the distress of the farmers caused by the National Party had given birth to the United Party. Would he tell us straight away what they died of? I wonder whether they have any hope of rising from the dead ever again. No, I am not going to waste my time any further on the nonsense the hon. member for Sea Point talked here.

I heard something very important. During the past week I heard that the extensive and amid North-West, which had been stricken by a disastrous drought, had had good rains, and we are very grateful for that. We trust that the drought in those areas has been broken completely. Sir, we know the spirit of those people in the North-West. They are people with a spirit of independence, people who do not like to beg for alms. They cut their coats according to their cloth. This is something to which I want to pay tribute to-day. But it is also traditional in South Africa that if a community meets with disaster, that community is granted relief. If a community in any part of the country meets with disaster, the State grants relief. It so happens that those parts of the country met with disaster, a truly disastrous drought—and I challenge any person to say that it was not an unprecedented disaster. It was something absolutely unprecedented, and then the Government offered those farmers relief, as is traditional here. On behalf of those farmers who really dislike subsidies or rebates, I want to thank the Government today for the fact that it came forward in a time of real disaster and offered, in a most judicious way, very liberal relief to those farmers. On behalf of those farmers I say thank you, for if that timeous relief had not been forthcoming, large numbers of those farmers would have had no alternative but to have gone bankrupt, not because of all the absurd things the United Party said here, but because of a disaster that was unprecedented in the history of this generation. That is why I want to extend my sincere thanks to the Minister and to his Department. But while we in that area were suffering under a disastrous drought, a further disaster hit that area when our river, which is the life-blood of a large number of those farmers, stopped flowing and those farmers lost their crops. When the river started flowing again, it caused such floods last year that the new crops the farmers had just established, were washed away. Once again the Government realized that it was faced with a disaster in this area. Once again a survey was made immediately and the Government told the farmers that it would grant them a 100 per cent loan to re-establish their crops, and that it was going to subsidize them by 50 per cent. Now I want to say at once that the farmers fortunately listened to me and not to the hon. Senator Louw. They did not sit back, waiting for the Government to help them. They stepped in immediately and started to put matters right, and they are sincerely grateful to the Minister and his Department for the judicious relief they received. We know that certain problems have always arisen in regard to the implementation of such relief. It is difficult to ascertain to what extent a farmer should be assisted. Calculations have to be made, and now I want to say that whenever any problem arose, I experienced nothing but sympathy and helpfulness on the part of the Department. Whenever a problem arose, whenever there was a misunderstanding, I experienced the greatest measure of helpfulness on the part of the Department and received the most sympathetic treatment, and I want to thank the Minister and his whole Department very cordially for that. [Interjections.] Yes, I know hon. members opposite do not want us to thank the Minister, but I also know that they are very ungrateful people, but my people are grateful; they know how to say that they are grateful, and I know that they expect me to do it on their behalf.

Having expressed my thanks in that regard, I want to bring to the notice of the Minister a certain little problem in respect of which he could perhaps help. In the vast North-West, in the vast constituency of Namaqualand for instance, we do not have a Government veterinary surgeon and are dependent upon the veterinary surgeon at Calvinia to do the work, which does cause inconvenience at times. But we are aware of the fact that the problem is in actual fact the scarcity of officials. The Farmers’ Union of Namaqualand has done a very praiseworthy thing. They found a deserving young lad and offered him a bursary on condition that he would study to be a veterinary surgeon and then be prepared to work in Namaqualand, i.e. to offer his services to the Department to work in Namaqualand. They sent this young lad to Stellenbosch, but unfortunately, when he had completed his first year at Stellenbosch and had to go to Onderstepoort, they could not take him there. The Minister can imagine for himself that this was a major disappointment to those farmers. Of course, that young man could not suspend his studies for a year, i.e. until such time as there would be room for him at Onderstepoort, and then he continued his studies in another field, and we have lost that young man. But, true to the spirit of the people in the North-West, they found another young lad this year. Once again they made a bursary available, and at the moment this young lad is studying in Pretoria. Now I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and his Department to do everything in their power to ensure that that young lad gains admission to Onderstepoort this year so that he may complete his studies.

Then I want to venture to submit a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. I want to ask him whether in his opinion it is not time that very favourably consideration was given to the possibility of establishing a faculty of veterinary science at the University of Stellenbosch. I think that there is a great need for that. I realize that a very great deal is being done for our farmers, and we are very grateful for that, but I think this is a sphere to which a little more attention could perhaps be given. I am convinced that that faculty will always be flooded with applications. We Shall always have more students than Onderstepoort will be able to take. [Time expired.]

When one listens to the level this debate reaches at times, one almost feels inclined to apologize to the farming population of South Africa for the way in which their votes are being auctioned here. I want to say that the farmers of South Africa reject this type of auctioning with the contempt it deserves. For that reason I am going to try to give a somewhat different approach to this debate in the time at my disposal. May I just say that the hon. member for Sea Point repeatedly asked the hon. the Deputy Minister these questions: Are things going well with the farmers; are you satisfied that things are going well with the farmers? I want to say that in the part about which I can speak with authority, the Western Transvaal, where the farmers were blessed with the necessary rains, things are going well with the farmers and we are grateful to Providence for the production we can yield in that area. However, in those places where we have had no rains and where climatic conditions have not favoured us, things are going badly, extremely badly, for the farmers. In those regions the farmers need assistance, not only in their own interests, but also, as I shall try to prove, in the interests of South Africa. That is why we have reason to be grateful for the measure of assistance they are being granted. Whether or not this is adequate, is a matter which we may profitably discuss on a high level. There is appreciation for the assistance granted to that sector of the agricultural industry where we have not been blessed with rains and where we require assistance, and the necessary assistance is also being granted.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make the statement here that anybody or person trying to create bad relations between the producer and the consumer in South Africa, is committing a national offence in the Republic of South Africa. The days of playing off producers against consumers are long past. These two sectors of our national economy supplement each other and should supplement each other, and each is dependent upon the other. That is why I say that in our discussions we should guard against creating bad relations between these two sectors of our national economy. We should always try to preserve the harmony and co-operation between the producer and the consumer. A member who makes irresponsible remarks in this House for a little personal political gain, may be applauded by his own people for a moment, but he would not be rendering any service to South Africa and in the eyes of the people of South Africa he would stand accused of having committed a serious offence for personal political gain. That is why we should refrain from doing so here. Having said that, it is perhaps at this stage necessary for us to reconsider the primary task and the primary function of the agricultural industry in South Africa.

The primary task and function of the agricultural industry still remains a matter of national importance, namely to feed a growing population in the country. I do not think that we are making much of a contribution when we are making political capital here out of the primary and the most important industry in South Africa, an industry which is so essential for us to meet the needs of our growing population, a growing population in a country which is being threatened in all respects. For that reason our approach must be such that whenever we speak of the primary function of the agricultural industry, i.e. to feed a growing population, it will always be in the public interest. I think that nobody who is interested in the agricultural industry and in South Africa, will differ with me in regard to this statement; I think the whole Committee will agree with this statement. But once one has made this statement, the question that arises is whether the farmers of South Africa would at all times be able to carry out this task with which they have been entrusted. It is in all modesty that I want to say—and my reply is unambiguous—that the farmers of South Africa are accepting this challenge on condition that they are enabled to do so.

A major point.

Yes, it is a major point. I think all of us should seek a solution. That is why we are grateful that we have men in the Department, a sympathetic Minister, and a House of Assembly that do not want to make political capital but seek solutions to enable the farmers of South Africa to carry out this primary function of theirs, i.e. to feed the nation. We can have a defence force; we can have major industrial development; we can have everything in South Africa, but it remains of paramount importance to all of us to have food. That is why it is our task to find ways and means of enabling the farmers to carry out this function. I believe that the farmers can carry out this task successfully, and I want to mention a few things which I consider to be essential for being able to do so. In the first place, I want to refer to the farmers’ attitude to this task with which they have been entrusted. Mr. Chairman, we can do what we please, but if this attitude is not right we shall not achieve success. In the first place, the will to produce food must be evident; the love of farming must be evident. What we must have, is not only the love of farming, but also the correct attitude, i.e. that the farmer should not consider his task to be that of farming simply and solely for the sake of making money. There must be love for the calling he fulfils, because what the farmer in South Africa is fulfilling, is truly a calling. The farmers themselves must have the necessary consciousness of their responsibility and indispensability. The farmers themselves must realize that they are indispensable in our national economy. But they cannot live on that. The farmers want security. They must have financial security, because they must render their contribution towards establishing and perpetuating the conservative element in our national life, and that is why they should feel that their efforts are not in vain. They must have the necessary financial security. Through the marketing of their products and what they receive for them, the farmers must be enabled to build families in South Africa. Farmers also know that they will not be able to establish all their children on their farms, but that they will be able to send their children to a university to be trained to become useful citizens of the Republic of South Africa. They must be dedicated to their task. What is being required from farmers, is that they should carry through their dedication to the most insignificant of their tasks, that they should be dedicated to their tractors, to those weak lambs that are feeling the cold and have to be brought in and cared for, which we did when we were children. This is what matters—the necessary dedication to their task. That must be the attitude they adopt. But this is not all that is necessary. Farmers need land in order that they may produce food for South Africa. Owing to certain circumstances, into which I do not wish to go at the moment, this land has in many respects become so expensive that the farmer cannot afford it. The land on which we are to produce food for South Africa is limited, and since it is limited it should be treasured like a priceless gem. Recently we had the opportunity of discussing the value of soil conservation, and I find it a pity that derogatory and disparaging references are made here to the serious attempts that are being made here on the part of the Department to conserve the soil of South Africa. We need water; we need cheaper implements for the production of food. We do not necessarily have higher prices for our produce, but through our research we must try to find cheaper means of production for the farmer. We need cheaper fertilizer. I also want to appeal to industry and the private sector, both of which have to be fed by the agricultural industry, not to entice the trained agricultural experts away from the Department of Agriculture by offering them higher salaries, because these people are in the service of the agricultural industry and therefore in the service of South Africa and in the service of the nation. That is why it is my appeal that we should retain these people. [Time expired.]

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Wolmaransstad on the speech he made here this afternoon; I cannot find any fault with it. However, I am after the blood of the hon. member for Namaqualand; I want to settle matters with him. I just want to warn the hon. member for Namaqualand in passing to select for himself another person to rub up the wrong way and to leave me alone. The hon. member wants to read me a lesson by telling me that I may not speak on behalf of the farmers because I represent Sea Point. I want to tell him now that he does not represent the farmers of Namaqualand. On whose land is he farming in Namaqualand? He is farming on land he leased from the Coloured Development Corporation at R50 per annum. Is he a person who ought to rise here and read a lesson to me and other farmers? [Interjections.] Let the hon. member rise and tell me that he does not farm on the land of the Coloured Development Corporation.

That is the biggest rubbish you have ever talked in your life.

Does the hon. member lease it?

No.

Did the hon. member farm it?

Once upon a time I leased a piece of land; you must not talk rubbish.

Order! The hon. member must accept the hon. member for Namaqualand’s word when he says “no” and leave the matter at that.

In that case I shall have to accept it, Mr Chairman. I just want to tell the hon. member that he should not speak disparagingly of other people who are bona fide farmers. I am a bona fide farmer and he knows it.

Do you farm in Sea Point?

That hon. Carr-member stays on the “car”. It would be better for him if he got off it. The hon. member for Namaqualand should not speak disparagingly of a bona fide farmer when he speaks on behalf of the farmers. Sea Point elected me to represent the farmers of South Africa. What sort of farmer is the hon member for Namaqualand? In the days when I knew him, he was a travelling salesman for Spilhaus, a firm which sold windmills to farmers. The hon. member asked me a poor question; he said that I had said that the United Party was born out of the problems the Nationalist Party Government had created for the farmers in the years of the depression. Then the hon. member said to me: “If that was the beginning of the United Party, what is the cause of their end?” I shall give the hon member a reply to that question in the words used by the late Dr. Dönges in the Stellenbosch City Hall, before the National Party won the election there. He said: “Mr. Strauss comes here with a thousand promises. I hope the people of South Africa will not be as stupid as they were once in Namaqualand.” Of course, he did not refer to the hon. member for Namaqualand; he had another person in mind. Dr. Dönges said further: “Two candidates stood for election there. One of them was Dr. Steenkamp, who stood as an independent. Dr Steenkamp knew the psychology of the people. The candidate who opposed Dr. Steenkamp said to the voters: ‚If you vote for me, I shall give each of you a borehole on your farm.‛ But then Dr. Steenkamp came along and he said to the voters: ‚If you vote for me, I promise you not only a borehole; I promise you a borepump on your boreholes.‛” Dr. Steenkamp, like that hon. member, was clever. I wonder what kind of holes that hon. member promised the voters of Namaqualand? [Interjections.]

Daantjie Scholtz was a far better member than that hon. member is. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to devote any more of my time to boreholes and borepumps or whatever one calls them, but what I want to say is this: I think that I have now gone far enough as regards the frivolous political aspect. I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister another matter which is of a more serious nature and which should not be dealt with in a frivolous way, and that is the question of vegetable prices in the urban areas. I think this Committee will agree that the gap between the price the farmer receives and the price the consumer has to pay is by far and away too wide and unrealistic. I think this is accepted generally. On the other hand, I just want to say here that I do not want to put all the blame for this on the vegetable dealers. One is so inclined to say that the vegetable dealers are making an enormous profit, but how many greengrocers have you come across, Mr. Chairman, who have become very wealthy? Those people work long hours and they work hard.

I drove around in Sea Point, for instance, and counted the number of greengrocers there. I wonder whether the time has not come for an investigation to be made to see whether there is not over-trading in that field. It stands to reason that the greengrocers themselves must make a certain basic amount of profit so that they may make a living. We must realize that they are trading in perishable produce. But if one finds a greengrocer shop every ten or 15 yards, the situation becomes a serious one. The large number of shops must necessarily reduce the turnover per unit. Therefore it follows that their margin of profit has to be pushed up considerably so that they, too can make a living. I have heard, and this is being said about the liquor trade in particular, that the more points of distribution one has, the more one sells. But this is not true.

Recently I wanted to buy a pocket of oranges in Sea Point and the price per pocket was R1.25. Owing to this high price the shopkeeper only sells, let us say, between 15 and 20 pockets. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not give consideration to having this question of fruit and vegetable distribution investigated, especially with a view to the effect over-trading has in that field. The Minister is quite capable of having something of that nature done. He was connected with the wheat industry for a long time, long before he became a Minister, and he gained experience in various fields. He served on directorates, for instance on those of Safco and certain warehouses. He knows that we experienced the same difficulty in regard to the wheat industry. It was only when the question of over-trading had been tackled and solved and the prices had been fixed—something which is, of course, not possible when it comes to vegetables—that progress and stability were introduced. I give this suggestion to the hon. the Minister for what it is worth, but I really feel that he could have this matter investigated.

I want to mention another example, namely that of citrus industry, citrus in the Western Province at any rate. I do not have the time to discuss the whole matter. But do you know what is happening, Sir? For reasons which may perhaps be very good ones, we have at present a citrus control scheme on the basis of which the so-called pooling of the proceeds of citrus fruit is being distributed amongst the producers. It sounds very good, but what is actually happening is this: Owing to the difficulties attendant upon the distribution of citrus fruit, such fruit is marketed on the Cape market once or twice a week, and on those days the price is very high. That high price remains the price level at which the fruit is sold to the consumer. In other words, the producer receives little and the consumer pays a high price for the fruit. I wonder whether the Minister should not consider granting exemption to those areas which are within striking distance in times when there is little or no citrus fruit on the market, so that a steady price may be maintained throughout. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point has one gift, and that is always to tell a lot of stories which are supposed to be true, but which always have a twist. He said one true thing this afternoon, and that was all. He said the hon. member for Namaqualand was very clever. I regret that I cannot say the same of the hon. member for Sea Point. All I can say to him that may be flattering is that there are many “r’s” in his alphabet and that this intrigues one when listening to all his clever stories. If you analyse these stories, however, you find that they are devoid of any content. He is very fond of scavenging. Where I come from we have a certain kind of vulture the name of which appears in the dictionary. I do not want to belittle the hon. member now. In any case, we call that bird the tjokkerbek vulture. The hon. member reminds me a great deal of that bird, particularly when he is telling us about Sea Point and the things that happen there. There is a continual scavening for something the hon. member will not find on this side of the House. I want to say to him that he does not impress anybody by making such personal remarks about the hon. member for Namaqualand, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the people he is so fond of attacking repeatedly in this House.

The citrus industry was mentioned here. As we all know, circumstances are continually changing in regard to every industry in this country, and this always goes hand in hand with problems. I was glad to hear the statement made by the hon. the Minister yesterday in regard to the citrus industry, which is experiencing problems at the moment. We know that in agriculture, as in other industries, problems may develop suddenly, but wherever problems have developed, the Government has invariably tried to meet them. The hon. the Minister put it this way yesterday: “There are various problems besetting the citrus industry. They do not only have the problems of devaluation. We will also have to apply certain other measures to assist the citrus industry, such as a transport subsidy per box, or whatever it may be.” I repeat that I was very glad when I heard this yesterday. On behalf of the citrus growers in my constituency I want to thank the hon. the Minister sincerely, and I want to assure him that the farmers in my district have peace of mind now. I am thanking the Minister notwithstanding the fact that that side of the House does not like to thank the Minister.

The citrus industry is based on its export market. If we look at the past 19 years, we see that the net revenue in foreign exchange for the national economy was no less than R380 million. Over the past few years it averaged between R25 million and R30 million per annum. This is indeed an achievement. What I like about the Citrus Board and the Citrus Exchange, which the hon. member for Sea Point tried to belittle here, is that they do not concentrate on one market only. Their approach has been to diversify the markets. Thus we find that we have no fewer than 16 markets in Europe alone. In the Far East, in the Middle East, in North Africa, in Canada, in New Zealand, in all those areas markets are being developed. In the year 1966 citrus products to the value of approximately R2½ million were sold in the areas I have mentioned. The value of the citrus products sold in Europe 19 years ago was only R6 million, while the figure for 1967 was R18 million, in other words, three times as much. As far as the export of citrus products is concerned, the price unfortunately remains static, as there is never an increase abroad. This is one of the basic problems of the citrus industry. In view of the logical increase in the costs of transportation, labour, production, etc., the static overseas prices for citrus products create problems. I trust that a solution will be found now, seeing that the Minister said yesterday that concessions would be made to this industry in some way or another in order to meet the rising costs.

I now want to say something about our domestic market. According to statistics, large quantities of citrus fruit, for example grapefruit and lemons, are being sold on our domestic markets. I do feel, however, that judicious use is not being made of citrus fruit. I am grateful that an inter-departmental committee has now been appointed. I am convinced that if we were to approach the question of the domestic marketing of our citrus fruit more judiciously, great medical benefits will result. It is an accepted medical and scientific fact that regular consumption of citrus fruit increases one’s resistance to colds. We have a shortage of manpower in our factories, etc., to-day. If we can induce the workers to drink citrus juices more often, they will have greater resistance against colds, which cause so many man-hours to be lost. We know that our mineworkers are exposed to various kinds of lung diseases. They will benefit greatly by making judicious use of citrus fruit.

In my own constituency the orange grower does not have large tracts of lands at his disposal, with the result that he cannot grow additional crops to enable him to reap supplementary harvests. A citrus tree takes several years to become productive, and the average cost is R15 per tree. Consequently those farmers cannot change over to another kind of product overnight. In my opinion the citrus industry has a great future in South Africa, if farmers pay heed to the appeal made by the Minister earlier this year that new plantations should be added in a judicious way and that control should be exercised to prevent new citrus from being planted unnecessarily or on too large a scale without the true marketing position first being established. It is the duty of the Citrus Board and the Citrus Exchange, as well as of the citrus co-operative movements throughout the country, to inform their members in order to prevent over-production of citrus. If they respond to the Minister’s appeal and if we receive the concessions in respect of the transportation of citrus, we shall find that the domestic market will develop as it should and that the citrus industry will continue to make its rightful contribution to the agricultural economy as well as to the economy of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with the statement made by the hon. member for Sea Point in referring to the four great Acts which the United Party is supposed to have given the country. Acts on which the agricultural economy is based. He mentioned, inter alia, the Farmers’ Assistance Act. He probably knows that that Act has been repealed and that a much more important Act has been substituted for it, namely the Agricultural Credit Act.

It is the same Act.

No, it is not the same; you know nothing about it in any case. This Act contains certain provisions which appeared in the Farmers’ Assistance Act, as well as a whole lot of new principles. I now want to refer to the hon. member for King William’s Town, who submitted a plea here, though I could not really understand what he actually wanted. As it seemed, he wanted the Land Bank to do all agricultural financing. It is very clear to me that the hon. member does not know much about agricultural financing. I want to say to him that this agricultural financing legislation is one of the finest pieces of financing legislation ever to be passed by this Parliament. I think it is legislation which is unique in the world. I think that it is the best form of financing which could ever have been given to the farmers. It has been in operation only since October, 1966. Although certain problems were experienced initially, inter alia, in determining the policy and in ironing out other matters, it is now enabling certain farmers to farm and to continue their farming operations, people who would never have been able to do so before. It enables the young farmer to obtain 100 per cent loans. It is the first Act relating to agricultural matters in which the farmer is granted recognition both as a person and as a farmer. This country will derive a great deal of benefit from this Act. It is very clear to me that the Opposition really does not know what is going on in the agricultural sector and in the financing of it. This is what one must infer from the nonsense which they have talked here this afternoon. The hon. member for King William’s Town said that it was a humiliation for the farmer to be financed by the Department of Agricultural Credit. How can it be a humiliation? It is an institution which helps a certain category of farmers who cannot be helped by the private sector or by the Land Bank. I do not want to go into details about the Land Bank now. The point is that the young farmer and other farmers can be assisted under the new Act at a reasonable rate of interest. Now the hon. member speaks of sub-economic support. This is not so.

I just want to make one specific request to the Minister in connection with this agricultural credit legislation. Hon. members know that it is administered by the magistrates and the magistrates’ offices. I again want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence and that of his Department with the magistrates to ensure that waiting rooms or something of that nature be provided for the farmers. At some places they already exist, but I tried to get a waiting room for them at Pietersburg, and the magistrate told me that he simply did not have the accommodation. I should like to see that these people, who sometimes have to travel long distances and have to wait for hours before they are interviewed by the Agricultural Credit Committee, at least have a place in which to rest and to wait. I should have liked to take this matter further, but I do not have sufficient time to do so.

I should like to refer to the situation in my own constituency. I want to refer to the terrible drought which we again experienced this year. As I have said, we had seven years of drought, then we had rains in one year, and then we had this terrible drought again. We are grateful for the two good rains which we had in the past month or two. These rains have enabled the grass to grow, but have not yet saved the situation. I now specifically want to say to the hon. members of the Opposition that I want to and am going to thank the Minister and the Government, in particular for the R3 million provided on the Estimates to assist the farmers in the drought emergency conditions. Before I left there and while the drought was still very severe, I gave the farmers the undertaking that they need not be concerned, because they would be seen through. This has in fact been done. The amount will be more than sufficient to meet the drought emergency conditions.

They are still drought-stricken.

I shall come to that. It is still extremely dry there, in spite of the recent rains which we have had. It did not rain grass, but the grass which has in fact grown will not be sufficient to see us through the winter. It will perhaps be sufficient for sheep farmers and certain farmers in other particular areas, but in certain of our soil conservation districts there are patches where there is really not enough grazing to see us through. In other words, since they are drought-stricken, they are already receiving fodder loans and transport rebates, but I want to ask the Minister to expedite the introduction of the subsidy for stock-feed. The time has come when people can no longer get by, and they want that subsidy very badly now.

I also want to appeal to the Minister not to couple the subsidy to the loan, and that no one should be obliged to take the loan. There are some farmers who are financially strong enough to contribute that 50 per cent from their own pockets. A loan is therefore not necessary, and they do not want to take a loan.

The rains which have fallen have given us hope for the future. The grass and the trees will now sprout early in the summer, but there is another problem now. As a result of the drought there are no crops. Some will struggle to get through on their cattle, and from now on they will really have no income until next year, until they sow and reap once more. We are far from the urban areas, and the people now have to seek employment. Some of them have to leave their farms, which will then be neglected. They will have to go to work in urban areas to provide their families with the necessaries of life. I also want to ask the Minister to recommend to the Minister of Social Welfare—I have already negotiated with him—that the personal loans which were made available in the past, should be re-introduced. Those loans amounted to R600 a year and were paid monthly to the farmers. I want to ask that those loans be increased, if possible to R1,200, because the persons who need them have no income. R100 per month will enable them to remain on their farms, look after their animals, care for their farms and still provide for their families and keep their children at school. I believe that with that they will be able to keep their affairs going without asking for further subsidies and loans. This is the greatest deficiency which exists there now, and I want to ask the Minister to recommend that those loans be granted.

Mr. Chairman, I was glad to hear the hon. member for Pietersburg asking the Minister to assist those people who now want to avail themselves of the system of subsidies, by keeping subsidies separate from loans. I want to congratulate the hon. member on the suggestion he made. I shall tell hon. members why. This was in fact one of the suggestions we on this side of the House submitted during the Budget debate for consideration. Hon. members on that side of the House said that this would cost South Africa millions of rands and that it was easy for the United Party to make promises. I am even prepared to go so far as to sayߪ

Must we repay the money immediately?

There are scores of those people in the Karoo for whom the drought is something of the past, people who struggled through on their own, but by now the debts have mounted up, all of them debts which they incurred during the time of drought. Now we say that those people can do one of two things: They can ask for those debts to be consolidated at a rate of interest of 5 per cent per year. Alternatively, if I, for example, incurred such debts during the time of drought and if I am able to prove it, I should also be able to get a 50 per cent subsidy on such debts just like the other farmers. I want to congratulate the hon. member on the fact that he is thinking on more or less the same lines as we on this side of the House do in regard to this matter.

I should like to refer to the hon. the Minister’s reply yesterday afternoon. I do not want to suggest that he was completely at sea in his reply. I have his speech in front of me, and I listened very carefully while he was making it. But the hon. the Minister wanted to create the impression that the question of price manipulation which we had raised was about the only charge we on this side of the House could level. We levelled three charges against the Government in respect of the problems experienced by the farmer. We said that the steps taken for rehabilitation after the drought were inadequate. The second charge we levelled was that the reserves of the farmers had diminished as a result of, inter alia, a form of price manipulation. The second reason was the enormous increase in production costs during the past year. Then the hon. the Minister said that the difficulties had arisen in those very sectors in which we had no say. He said that in those sectors in which he did have a say, great satisfaction prevailed and the farmers were doing well. [Interjection.] Very well, I shall tell the hon. member that. Let us look at the wheat industry. The hon. the Minister does have a say as far as the wheat industry is concerned. Why are the wheat farmers satisfied? They are satisfied because the hon. the Minister granted them a price increase last year. That is why those people are satisfied, compared with people in other agricultural sectors. Why were the maize farmers dissatisfied last year? They were dissatisfied because the price was reduced. Why is the dairy farmer in South Africa still happy at the present stage? For how long they are going to be happy, I do not know. They are happy because an adequate and improved price adjustment was made during the last few years. The crux of the argument advanced by this side of the House is that if you want the people to be satisfied and you cannot help to force down their production costs, there is only one other solution, and that is to adjust their prices as time goes on.

We also said in this debate that the short-term policy—and by that we mean the immediate rehabilitation of the farmer under these circumstances—should now receive maximum attention. This should be placed on a sound basis first and then the long-term policy should be applied systematically to keep the industry sound. In reply the hon. the Minister then told us that his long-term policy was there for all to see, namely soil conservation and the guidance being given to the farmer of South Africa. As the hon. member for Sea Point has already pointed out, the long-term policy of which the hon. the Minister is boasting, was introduced and placed on the Statute Book by the United Party 25 or 30 years ago. This is what we mean when speaking of a long-term policy. Firstly, we say that steps should be taken to restore general confidence in our agricultural industry. I hope to explain this concept in the few minutes left to me. Secondly, we believe that steps will have to be taken to get rid of temporary surpluses without continually penalizing the producer. The hon. member for Rustenburg spoke about the question of seeking markets when surpluses occur. This is the type of thing which should receive attention regularly. When there is a maize surplus, must we always try and find a market for our maize overseas? What about our own domestic market? Cannot we develop our domestic market further? [Interjections.] Hon. members on that side may laugh about this. It is quite correct, because that is how they approach this matter. But we say there are millions of head of stock, small as well as large stock, in South Africa which can be fed properly on the surpluses we have at our disposal. We say that a long-term policy should be aimed at ensuring a reasonable annual dividend to the producer and the land-owner as compared with other sectors. Furthermore, we say that when there is general prosperity in the country, our agricultural industry should also share in it. If this does not form part of your long-term agricultural planning, then you do not have a long-term policy. We say further that agriculture will keep pace with this by means of its research, its scientific methods and proper training and guidance, and that we shall be in a position to feed our ever-increasing population. This is our long-term policy.

Furthermore, we say that the production of agricultural commodities must never take place at the expense of the fertility of our land, our veld and our soil.

Do you know what you are talking about?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development has only one subject which he can talk about.

But I can make a much better speech on agriculture than you can. You are just talking nonsense.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says it is nonsense when we say that a long-term policy should be introduced to protect the fertility of our land and our soil. We say that any harmful exploitation of our soil will have to be prevented, and we believe that this can only be done when there is a reasonable margin of profit. This will prevent our soil from being impoverished and exploited. Exploitation of the soil takes place when the farmer is going through difficult times. If the farmer has a proper margin of profit, those evils are eliminated. Finally we say that our long-term policy should be aimed at establishing in this country a prosperous and stable farming community which is firmly rooted in the soil. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Sea Point made such a fuss here this afternoon and spoke about how the United Party had come into power, and about the good laws which it had placed upon the Statute Book in its time, it put me in mind of an epitaph which I saw one day on a gravestone. It read as follows: “Here lie the bones of Mary Creft; she pointed right and then turned left”. That is of course what happened to the United Party. That is why they also need an epitaph to-day, as this woman had. for the good deeds they did. [Interjections.] When the hon. member for East London (City), having lost his way, ended up where he is at present, it was only afterwards that he discovered he had ended up amongst the gravestones. That is why he now has such a great deal to say. It is out of fear that he is now making so much noise.

I do not want to begin an argument with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I can also get up here and say: The farmers must make a good living; they must have a good income; they must receive a good price for their products; it must be possible for them to undertake soil conservation, etc. But surely this is not an argument simply because we all say so. In order to effect those things, one must take various factors and various farmers into account. One has to deal with big farmers, medium farmers and small farmers.

The biggest problem is the Minister.

One can only feel sorry for the hon. member for Yeo ville when one thinks of what he knows about agriculture. Outside, addressing a United Party meeting from a platform, he of course knows all there is to know about it. He knows so much about it that he has never been able to win an election on the basis of his knowledge of agriculture. I just want to reply to a few matters which have been raised here and which I think are of some importance.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) spoke about the surplus of fresh milk which is sometimes found in our cities. He spoke about skimmed milk which, because it could not be processed, was allowed to run to waste because there were no facilities for processing it.

I never said that.

The hon. member does not know what he was talking about. I want to give him a reasonable reply, and he need not be afraid. I just want to tell the hon. member that it is of course cause for concern when such situations arise. That is why the Milk Board in Johannesburg, where most of these cases occur, has, at its own expense, established a special institution through the assistance which it has given to some company or other, to have this milk processed, at such times, into powdered milk or other milk products. Of course it costs money. Whether it will be economic to incur this expenditure for that short duration of time and to undertake this processing, only time will tell. However, we have taken active steps to process the milk when such large surpluses occur so that people will be able to use it again in some form or other.

The hon. member for Albany expressed concern about the R1 million which the Government had granted to the Wool Board for research, and asked What the position would be in future, in other words whether this contribution would be made again in future. In the first instance this contribution of R1 million this year was granted in order to assist the farmers out of the difficult situation in which they have found themselves to-day. The Wool Board has, as we expected, reduced its levy on the wool farmer by this amount. That means that the contribution which the wool farmer himself would have had to make for this purpose is being reduced by R1 million. Whether this contribution is going to be made again in future, we will have to learn from circumstances. Whether the Government I is going to make a further contribution will depend upon circumstances and upon what the position at that moment is.

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus was concerned about differentiation in mealie prices, and his request was that there should be no differentiation without a thorough prior investigation having been instituted. As the hon. member knows, the Mealie Board itself submitted a scheme for differentiated prices. Our opinion was that the scheme as proposed would not have worked properly and that we would subsequently have found ourselves in a situation where it would have been necessary to differentiate to a certain extent, although not necessarily as far as the price was concerned. In reality there are only two industries where there is no differentiation of prices owing to distance and transportation, these are the wheat and the mealie industries. The question is whether we will be able to maintain, in times of increased production, a scheme which had been introduced when there were shortages and when it was necessary to maintain strict control over the market in South Africa. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if every mealie farmer had to receive the same price at every station to which he delivered mealies then those farmers who were closer to the consumers’ centres or the export markets, would to a certain extent have to subsidize the others. But I can nevertheless give the hon. member the assurance that there will be no differentiation before we are satisfied that it can be defended on its merits. As the hon. member correctly indicated the effect of the scheme proposed would have been to encourage production in regions where such encouragement was least necessary.

The hon. member for Gordonia spoke about the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture in regard to the withdrawal of land in the Kalahari. Of course I would not like to anticipate the resolutions and findings of the Commission in this regard…

But surely you accept these recommendations, do you not?

I accept the principle contained therein, yes. After all, I have been advocating this all these years—how could I refuse to accept it now? But it does not mean that I accept every recommendation in detail. One has strong doubts as to whether the proposal to withdraw people from the Gordonia-Kalahari region is the best way of applying soil conservation there. There is always the danger that if one withdraws the area from grazing there may still be pressure from people outside who want to go there in search of grazing. The owner of a farm is, with the right attitude and training, still the best conservor of his soil. With the right attitude and a strong will he still remains the best conservator of his own land. That is why we are very careful to see to it that when land is granted farmers, they are people who will be able to preserve that land.

The hon. member also spoke about the question of labourers’ houses and the financial position of the farmers in respect of the construction of houses for their labourers. Reference was made to a committee which was appointed to investigate this matter. The Government decided to make loans available by means of the Agricultural Credit Act on Agricultural Credit interest, in other words, 5 per cent on a reasonably long-term basis, to enable farmers to construct houses on their farms for their labourers.

Can we have that report?

You do not need that report, because I am now announcing what is going to be done. This report is an interdepartmental one. In view of the fact that such housing loans are going to be granted, it is obvious that certain restrictions will have to be imposed on the loans. In the first instance there will be plans for Coloured and Bantu houses which have been approved by the Department. These plans will be available to farmers who want to make use of this scheme. There will be a maximum loan per house. Certain conditions will be laid down in regard to the way in which the loans must be granted. These loans will be granted after an investigation by Agricultural Credit Committees which will make recommendations in regard to what the maximum number of houses which the farmer can construct on his farm will be. In other words, no farmer will be at liberty to build any number of houses, regardless of whether the labour on his farm is being efficiently or inefficiently utilized. The number of houses will be determined by the number of labourers which he ought to employ. The period of repayment of loans will not necessarily be an equally long or an equally short period for all farmers. However, we hope that the period will be more or less 20 years. These loans will be granted under the Agricultural Credit Act, according to circumstances, to the farmer and at a 5 per cent rate of interest. These loans will be granted without the application of a means test. In other words, any farmer will be able to qualify for such a loan to build houses for his labourers.

What will be accepted as security?

Security will be registered by means of a certificate on his title; this will not necessarily have an effect on his normal bond.

The hon. member for Marico spoke about production cost insurance. Of course, when the hon. member thinks of production cost insurance, he has in mind that it should only apply to certain industries. He stated that it should be a voluntarily contributory scheme. Of course the Government must bear certain costs. However, if we analyse the agricultural problem which arises, particularly in times of drought, one finds that it is not only the mealie farmer who cannot cover his production costs during droughts. This problem applies to many parts of the country, and particularly the cattle regions where, from time to time, one experiences problems in regard to drought. In these areas farmers cannot insure their income, because as a result of drought or stock losses, they have no income. Any scheme which ensures production costs is of course a scheme which presents a great many problems. Such a scheme will not only exert pressure on the Government, but also on the farming activities and industries in regard to which it cannot be applied. Before such a scheme can be introduced, the possibility of such a scheme must still be subjected to a great deal of investigation. It is very easy to say that it is being done in other countries. I am convinced that the largest section of our farmers and the greatest percentage of our efficient farmers, will not be in favour of such an insurance scheme. The insurance will more specifically be available for the less efficient farmer, and if this scheme is not compulsory, it will mean that a tremendous amount of administrative and other costs would be involved. At the moment we are still engaged on an investigation in regard to this matter.

Is the hon. Minister prepared to have further investigations instituted into this matter?

As I have said, we are still engaged in an investigation into this matter, but at the moment I do not want to make any further promises in regard to it.

The hon. member for King William’s Town made an interesting statement in regard to credit provision in spite of the fact that it is perhaps so that one cannot always understand him correctly. He asked for a consolidation of the Land Bank with the Department of Agricultural Credit. Of course the hon. member realizes that the object of establishing the Department of Agricultural Credit was quite a different one. The Department of Agricultural Credit did not merely deal with aspects of financing, such as mortgage financing and short-term financing, but also with the allocation of State-owned land, the location of settlers on settlement land, and many other matters. When one talks of credit provision to agriculture, and particularly long-term credit provision, one asks oneself whether we in South Africa have not reached a stage where we must begin thinking in an entirely different direction as far as long-term credit provision is concerned. What are the actual facts? The facts of the matter are that normal financial institutions are prepared to grant mortgages as long as things are going well with agriculture. Very often they do so without taking into account the production capacity of the land. As soon as the farmers begin to experience difficulties and cannot make the grade, those people are dumped into the lap of the State, the Land Bank or the Department of Agricultural Credit. I have certain opinions in regard to this matter which I do not want to express here to-day. The question is whether we must not, in our entire system of credit institutions, particularly in regard to our mortgage credit institutions, bring about better co-ordination between all the various providers, whether they are private credit suppliers or the Land Bank or the Department of Agricultural Credit. Perhaps a closer link between these various credit suppliers must be found, particularly in regard to the aspect of long-term credit mortgage bonds. Such schemes do exist in other countries of the world. One of the terms of reference of this commission of inquiry is precisely to go into this matter and make recommendations about it. This applies to long-term credit provision, particularly on bonds, by various bodies. Short-term credit provision is easier to control, because it usually goes hand-in-hand with production. The difficulty with long-term bonds is that when things are going well with the farmer private concerns are readily inclined to increase these bonds, but as soon as things are going badly with the farmers, they are as readily prepared to withdraw these bonds and to unload their responsibility on to the State. In other words, the State cannot at this stage, with our method of financing, bind itself to undertaking all credit provision, particularly in regard to bonds, of its own accord. That would be placing the State in a very difficult position, because the people will be dumped into its lap on a large scale, and at a land value which will be totally uneconomic.

The hon. member for Bethal spoke about soil conservation and district committees. I agree with him that our soil conservation committees form one of the most important links between the producer and the farmer as far as our soil conservation effort is concerned. We are training our soil conservation committees in the methods of soil conservation so that these methods can also be applied in practice. Of course one can quite understand, and I want to agree with the hon. member, that if the committee is not inspired with a zeal for soil conservation, then it cannot be expected that any success will be achieved. The attempts to conserve the soil which are being made in various parts of the country can be examined, and one will find that when there is a live-wire committee, attempts in regard to soil conservation are more successful. I want to agree with the hon. member that it will be one of our tasks, and that this question of liaison with our farmers in regard to soil conservation by their own committees is something which we will of necessity have to promote. In the first instance soil conservation means in the long run that one must induce the right attitude in the farmer. When I speak of the attitude of the farmer, I am not of course speaking only of his attitude towards digging ditches, spanning wire, and building watering points. I am speaking particularly of his attitude to the (potential of his soil. If we were to analyse the difficulties being experienced in many parts of South Africa, one would come to the conclusion that in many of our cattle regions one of our basic problems is that the carrying capacity of the land is, in most cases, being over-estimated. During droughts the farms cannot carry the stock. The carrying capacity of the soil is first being determined in terms of figures. It is then said that the land must carry a certain number of stock, and if the land cannot carry that number, we say that there is something wrong with nature. In most cases, however, the potential carrying capacity of the land is being over-estimated. The farmers are like that, and are inclined to do so. One of the basic principles which we must bring home to our farmers, which is the task of the Department and of all people who take an interest in soil conservation, is that soil conservation does not necessarily mean the filling in of ditches, and the other things I referred to, but means in particular the biological rehabilitation of the farms.

The hon. member for Fauresmith spoke about production loans which have to be granted by the Department of Agricultural Credit to people who want to plant grass, etc. I just want to tell the hon. member that this is already being done. The hon. member will of course realize that there are many parts of our country which are in reality marginal regions. The Government cannot—and a stricter policy in respect of this matter will be applied—extend credit in the same region for the planting of grazing, particularly in these marginal areas the hon. member spoke of, and at the same time extend credit for the production of cash crops as well. However, we hope that, according to circumstances and as we learn in due course, this matter will be ironed out to better effect so that it will be possible to decide more specifically where it can be applied. The hon. member also spoke about the consolidation of our soil units and praised this policy. The hon. member for Potgietersrust spoke about cases where agricultural land, particularly about our cities, was being subdivided. Large portions of this agricultural land are being bought up for the development of towns or cities. It is of no use the State spending millions of rands to effect the consolidation of land and to create economic units if, on the other hand, we allow the subdivision of our land to continue. It will be like closing a tap on the one side and opening it on the other. Steps will have to be taken to put a stop to this subdivision of agricultural land in South Africa, on the scale on which it has been done in the past. This question of the cutting up of agricultural land is a much wider one than the mere concept of cutting up or subdividing land. One feels that agricultural land in South Africa to-day is being utilized for many purposes and is being withdrawn from agriculture, which is not always in the best interests of agriculture. I am convinced that there should be some form of legislation or other by means of which we will be able to make use of available agricultural land in South Africa on a planned basis. For this reason I have already appointed a committee to go into this entire matter. The committee was appointed with the following terms of reference (translation)—

To investigate, report and make recommendations on—

1. 1. The need, desirability and practicability of:
   1. (a) the zoning of agricultural land;
   2. (b) control over the utilization of agricultural land, and the proclamation of land as agricultural land;
   3. (c) the classification of agricultural land according to its potential and utilization value in order to determine priorities in regard to the utilization thereof for agricultural, forestry, conservation and non-agricultural purposes;
   4. (d) the protection of agricultural land, particularly as regards the subdivision into uneconomic farming units, utilization for non-agricultural purposes and other malpractices and misuse which is not efficiently controlled by existing legislation;
   5. (e) planning of optimum utilization systems of agricultural land for various areas;
   6. (f) co-ordination of utilization of agricultural land by various state departments, administrations and other bodies according to the potential and utilization value of the land;
2. 2. The technical, administrative, socio-economic and financial and other problems which may arise from the recommended control of agricultural land and arrangements which may be required in this regard;
3. 3. A suitable organization to exercise control over the utilization, overall planning and protection of agricultural land and the statutory provision which may be deemed necessary for those purposes;
4. 4. The possibility of consolidating, incorporating, or amending existing legislation or parts thereof in regard to the utilization and division of agricultural land, or related matters; and
5. 5. Any other matter relating to the use of agricultural land.

I feel we have reached a stage in South Africa where we have a large shortage of agricultural land, and that we cannot in future simply allow agricultural land to be utilized at random. We find that roads are being built and forests planted, or that land is being withdrawn for purposes other than agriculture. In view of our scarcity of arable soil we will have to reach the stage where we take control and have a body which can decide on these matters, which will decide on priorities and on what can be done to prevent subdivision from taking place on the scale on which it is at present taking place.

When was the committee appointed?

A few weeks ago. It is not a commission of inquiry, but a committee representing the Department, which will deal with these matters.

I come now to the hon. member for Karoo. The hon. member stated that I had allowed a certain person to establish a fishing business at a place which had been allocated to the Coloured population in terms of the Group Areas Act, and that I allowed him to lease that land temporarily, for ten years, and to establish a crayfish exporting concern there. This entire area was established by the Department of Planning, but the hon. member is making a grave mistake. That land on which the factory is situated and which the person is leasing at the moment does not belong to the divisional council. It does not fall under the planning of group areas. The divisional council owns the land up to the high water mark of the coast, but it is an island. The hon. member states that the water does not always surround that area, but it has a totally different high water mark than the rest of the coast. In other words, this island does not form part of that portion which was allocated to the Cape Divisional Council.

But you gave them jurisdiction over the seashore and that includes that piece of land, which is not an island.

I gave them jurisdiction over the land which is situated on the high water mark of the coast, but the island has another high water mark surrounding it. What I am now giving the hon. member are the facts. The high water mark surrounding the island is not the same as that in regard to the land. The island has its own high water mark. That place was leased to the man for ten years, he will develop it and after ten years it is very possible that he will not be able to extend his lease and then it can be utilized in the interests of the Coloured population which the hon. member would like to serve.

May I ask the hon. the Minister to give us a definition of an island? That is the whole point.

I think I learnt that when I was in Sub. A, but the fact remains that under this allocation that island is still regarded as an island. After all, the name of the place is Witsand Island. Why does one call a place an island if it is not one? The hon. member can also ask the hon. member for Simonstown in regard to this matter; he is acquainted with it.

I have noted down what the hon. member for Namaqualand said and it will count to their credit that they have been so hardworking as to do those things.

But I want to return to the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member stated that I had made no reply to what he had said or to the problems which the hon. member had mentioned. There is for example the question of over-production. The hon. member stated that the Government must see to it that a few steps are taken. In the first place it must see to it that a domestic market is created for our products in South Africa. But there are domestic markets here. The entire purpose of all the various control boards and the State is to expand the domestic market to its maximum. The Government is subsidizing the entire mealie storage scheme in order to see to it that mealies are supplied to the consumer at a price he can pay, in order to stimulate the domestic market; everything possible is being done for the domestic market. In times of surplus butter and other products, special prices are laid down for those products, and they are sold in areas where they are offered at lower prices.

Why is there not a special price for mealies?

But I have just said that there is a special price for mealies. It is being subsidized by 47 cents per bag. Now the hon. member is asking why there is not a special price for mealies. [Interjection.] It is still much cheaper than what the farmer gets for it. Now the hon. member wants us to give the producer even more. The point is that it is already being subsidized to a very large extent, and the hon. member states that the consumer is still paying too much for it. It means that the producer is receiving too much, and the hon. member states that he is receiving too little. There are a large number of products which have free access to markets in South Africa, or an export market. Now the hon. member is talking about a long-term policy. Does he want any government to commit itself to ensuring that an increasing price will be paid under all circumstances for any product produced, as long as it increases in price? Must the Government give an undertaking of this nature? If the hon. member does not say to me that the Government must give such an undertaking, I can see no sense anywhere in his argument.

It is not one or the other; either bring down the production costs or allow the price to increase.

The hon. member is talking nonsense now. How can one bring down production costs if one has to feed mealies to one’s sheep and increase the mealie price? The hon. member must explain that to me. I say the fact remains that if the hon. member adopts that attitude then he must tell me: My policy is that we are under all circumstances simply going to see to it that prices in South Africa increase. For production costs are steadily increasing and will continue to increase; everything in the world is becoming more expensive. Then the hon. member must say that it is their policy to guarantee increased prices under all circumstances for all products which are being produced.

Are you in favour of lower prices?

The question the hon. member is now asking is a nonsensical one. Why should I be in favour of lower prices? I am in favour of the producer obtaining the best price he can get on the market. We are doing everything in our power to enable the farmer to get this price, but I am not so foolish as to say that I will see to it that the price does not decrease under any circumstances. If I were to say a thing like that, the farmers would think I was mad. The hon. member stated here that they advocated this and they advocated that. I stand for the same things the hon. member advocates in so far as they are practicable. That is what the Government is doing; that is the Government’s policy. The hon. member cannot mention one example to me of the Government not having implemented that policy as far as it was practicable.

How many of the recommendations in this report have you carried out up to now?

There is absolutely nothing in the Report about prices—not a single word.

But there are many other things here.

Of course. If I were to tell the hon. member what that report states, namely that only people who apply certain methods in their farming should receive State aid then he states that all should receive it and he attacks me across the floor because all are not receiving it. That is precisely what that report stated. The report also stated what I often say, namely that at least 35 or 40 percent of the farmers have no problems. That is also stated in the report and it states further that 30 per cent are making good progress and that they do not have many problems. The Report then continues and states that 10 or 12 per cent have landed themselves with problems and must receive assistance. I say the same thing, and I said it seven to eight years ago, but the hon. member is still arguing this point with me. Perhaps he will believe me now that this report states the same thing. I advocate precisely the same things the hon. member mentioned but I advocate the implementation of those things in so far as they are practicable. I cannot, as Minister, be so irresponsible as to give the farmers to understand that there will never be a decrease in their prices, no matter how high their production costs are, or to what extent the market price or the demand for those products may decrease. It would be irresponsible to say to the farmers that their prices will always increase as their production costs increase. But what I am in fact saying is that the Government will see to it that the producer obtains the best price for his product within the limits of what is practicable.

I only have ten minutes at my disposal, but I cannot refrain from replying to what the hon. member for Gardens said in his speech. He charged the Government with the maize price being so low and he said that it was the Government’s responsibility to increase the maize price. In the first place I should like to ask the hon. member if he can tell us what the price of maize was in the days of the United Party Government. I think that for the sake of convenience he would rather forget it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote from The Star of 13th January, 1966, a newspaper which is not well disposed to the National Party Government and which can also be regarded as the mouthpiece of the United Party. This extract deals with subsidies and with the price of maize. I just want to quote two paragraphs—

It then goes further and I should like the hon. member to listen to this. It says—

This is what they say about the maize prices, and then hon. members of the Opposition come along and accuse the Government of being responsible for the low prices and plead for higher prices. But I should also like to quote from the Transvaler of 28th August, 1965, what Mr. Deacon said. He issued a warning to us and said the following (translation)—

I think that this is a very serious matter and that we should examine it. Then he continued—

I think it is very clear that this must happen if things continue in this way. Then I just want to quote the last paragraph—

Mr. Chairman, we should like to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the farmer would like to retain his identity as an independent and free farmer.

The hon. member for Newton Park made the accusation against the Government that as a result of our poor agricultural policy the rural areas were being depopulated. Unfortunately I cannot agree with him. There are various other factors contributing to the gradual depopulation of the rural areas, and one of these I specifically want to lay at the Opposition’s door now. Under the policy of the old United Party Government they allotted small-holdings to farmers which were absolutely uneconomic. For years those farmers led a precarious existence on that land until they were eventually compelled to vacate those lands and to seek a better livelihood in the towns. That is one of the main causes of the depopulation of the rural areas. There are also other factors which we must take into account, but which are not relevant here now. Unfortunately I do not have the time to elaborate on that any further.

Mr. Chairman, whether the Opposition likes it or not, I have the privilege of also expressing my appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon for the concessions which he made recently in relaxing the quarantine regulations in the foot-and-mouth areas. I have the circular here in which those regulations were announced. I want to assure him that the farmers in those areas are very grateful for those concessions. I want to go further; I sometimes do not blame the Opposition, because they are too ignorant, but surely it is very difficult for any outsider to realize in what a dilemma the farmers are who are in the grip of quarantine regulations and then on top of that are faced with a tremendous drought. Many of the cattle farmers are threatened with ruin, and any relaxation of the quarantine measures, without endangering the livestock of South Africa, is much appreciated by us. We thank the hon. the Minister once again.

I should like to plead with the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power, in co-operation with other bodies, to try to find a lasting solution to eliminate the threatening danger of infection from the Kruger National Park and the adjacent Mozambique. It remains a threat to the whole country and we hope that means can be found to combat that threatening danger. The farmer’s existence is from time to time threatened by the elements, and if dangerous livestock and plant diseases over which he has no control, break out as well, then the necessary assistance must be granted. No other industry is as vulnerable as agriculture. Farming is to-day one of the most complicated undertakings in the country. It requires basic knowledge, ingenuity and capital to make a success of it. Hon. speakers have already referred to information services. I also feel that the farmer must receive the necessary information. For that we need more extension officers and technical assistants. I should like to quote here from the report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. They say, inter alia the following in connection with information services—

It is very important that the extension officer should be able to visit the farmer and make personal contact with him so that the problems can be discussed there. But the extension officers are usually burdened with so much other less important work which can be done by ordinary administrative officials, that they cannot make the professional knowledge available to the farmer. We want to plead that the hon. the Minister does everything in his power to provide relief to our extension officers in this respect. They are highly qualified persons and then they are called upon to do work which can be done by ordinary office clerks, when they can do more useful work instead and provide information to the farmer in his struggle in the field of agriculture.

I just want to ask and submit to the Minister for consideration whether the time has not come for us to do more recruitment at our high schools to see if we cannot obtain the necessary recruits for this good service. Our boys and girls are not all academically inclined. Many of them can qualify for a university career, but there are also many who perhaps cannot do so, but who can do the work required of a technical assistant. They can render these less important services to the farmer, so that our extension officers can perform their proper function and provide the necessary information to the farmers. I think that we would get very far if we already tried to recruit interested boys at high school to enter that service. I could elaborate on it further, but I do not have sufficient time at my disposal to motivate it fully. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised that the hon. members for Newton Park, Sea Point and Gardens are no longer in the House, because reallyߪ

Where is the Minister?

I shall tell hon. members why they are not here. They must just give me a chance, and not always anticipate matters. If a debate about agricultural matters in this House is conducted on the level on which hon. members opposite have done so, I do not blame them for not being here any longer.

The Minister is not here either.

Pursuant to that, I very respectfully want to say to the hon. member: If I were the Minister or the Deputy Minister. I would have left my seat in this House yesterday afternoon already. I want to tell you the reason for that. The hon. member for Gardens, for example, chose as his subject the dissatisfaction of the farmers about the maize prices.

Where is the Deputy Minister?

When this Minister heard of the dissatisfaction of the people about the maize prices, he went to address mass meetings of those dissatisfied farmers and, unlike hon. members of the Opposition, he was able to put the factual position to them, convince them and leave those meetings after having received a vote of confidence. But this hon. Minister can still stand here for days on end and it is very clear to me that he will never succeed in convincing this Opposition. Because they actually have nothing to do with maize prices, and because they know nothing about them, they cannot be convinced. But he has been able to satisfy the people who are really concerned in this matter.

I just want to refer to the hon. member for Newton Park. With elaborate gestures he made the statement here that the rehabilitation after the protracted droughts was not as rapid as he had expected. I take it amiss of someone if he makes use of circumstances beyond human control as a criterion to indicate that the rehabilitation was not so rapid. I want to say to hon. members opposite that after the drought came to an end in 1966, rehabilitation in my constituency and in large parts of the country was simply phenomenal, but unfortunately—and who could control that?—we were hit by a intermediate drought far more severe than anyone could have predicted. It was abnormal that after a long drought and a good year, we should simply be hit by another drought.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens adopted a boastful attitude and claimed that we had taken over their policy when the Government announced the building of the Verwoerd Dam. I want to say to hon. members opposite that that has just been the difference between the United Party and the National Party all along. The National Party always does the right thing at the right time, but in the case of the United Party the very reverse applies. I just want to ask what the position would have been with development in the Orange River Basin on a scale such as we envisage if it had happened in the days when South Africa was still an underdeveloped country in the industrial field? What dumb-founds me is the following: Hon. members opposite just want to prompt farmers who are in difficult circumstances owing to the drought. However, I do not blame them, because in this way they want to try to fight an election. They want to prepare themselves for the election of 1971. We want to say to hon. members opposite that the Government is aware of the problems of the farmer; for example, this Government is aware of the problems with which the wool farmer is faced at the moment. This side of the House has conducted interviews through the proper channels with the Chairman of the Wool Board and Mr. Geldenhuys, of whose death we learnt with the deepest regret. I do not want to elaborate, but hon. members know that relief is already being provided.

We can just say this to hon. members opposite. Only disillusionment waits upon people who carry on in this way, continually prompting people and leading them to believe that they ought to be dissatisfied. We recognize the problems of the farmers. Just as in the past, we have Ministers and Deputy Ministers who do not hide away in their offices to avoid the farmers, but who will present the farmers with the factual position, who will state the true facts to them and will explain to them what is being done. Sir, I think that they can also put it to the farmers as I am now putting it to you. Every normal person wants to be popular. What would be easier than simply increasing prices? Surely everything could just be done according to the farmer’s wishes and then we would be popular. Subsequently, however, it would become evident that the steps taken to gain popularity actually had in fact caused damage to those one wanted to help.

In conclusion I want to say to hon. members opposite that striving for popularity is sometimes only a sign of absolute weakness.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to devote much time to the hon. member for Smithfield. As far as I know, he did not speak about agriculture. He made one observation about the relief granted to the wool industry, but I am not going to dwell on that now.

Before returning to the reply which the hon. the Minister gave to the hon. member for Lydenburg, I just want to say that the hon. member also said that this side of the House always blamed the Government for the low prices which the farmers were getting. This is not so. We feel that prices fluctuate at times when in our opinion it is not necessary that they should fluctuate, and so the maize price came to be discussed. On a previous occasion I went on record as saying in this House to this Minister and the Department of Agriculture that any government which caused domestic prices to be so disproportionate to overseas prices that it could not subsidize the export of surpluses was only looking for trouble. Surely one must do this sort of thing according to a pattern. I do not want to discuss the price pattern now.

The hon. member for Lydenburg referred to the remark made by Mr. Deacon, i.e. that we should not all approach the Government for assistance so that State control would develop over agriculture to the point of eventually becoming unsound. In his reply this afternoon the Minister also said that the interim report of the Marais Commission stated that there was nothing wrong with between 30 and 40 per cent of our farmers, that 30 per cent were doing reasonably well, and that only 10 to 12 per cent were doing badly. I think that the Minister also knows that this is not the case. Much more than 10 to 12 per cent of our farmers are in financial difficulties. His Department made a survey in a part of the Karoo, and there it appeared that 60 per cent of the farmers were in financial difficulties. I do not want to elaborate on that.

I want to return to the remark made by the hon. member for Lydenburg about the depopulation of the rural areas. We forget that 10 short years ago we spoke of 122,000 farmers, and to-day we are speaking of 90,000. In other words, over the past 10 years more than 30,000 farmers left the rural areas. I do not want to justify or criticize this phenomenon or anything, but the fact remains that 90,000 farmers is a terribly small number in relation to the extent of the agricultural industry in South Africa. If we do not want State aid and State control because we are afraid that we shall thereby become bound to the State, and considering that the rate of interest on investment in agriculture is as low as 2 and 2½ per cent, then I ask what the alternatives are. Hon. members opposite must stand up and say what alternatives there are for the agriculturist. Must the price basis be improved or must production costs be reduced, or both, or neither? The following is probably altogether obvious. If one’s investment in agriculture only yields 2 per cent interest then one must do one of two things, because one cannot continue in this way. That is why the farmers are leaving the rural areas. They are rather going to the towns and cities. If the Government feels that it is a healthy phenomenon that they are going to the towns, he must tell us that. I say that one of two things must be done. The farmer must either obtain greater stability in his price basis or his production costs must be reduced.

How?

Someone is asking: How? We are not the only country that has these problems. In other countries steps are being taken in this regard. There are certain countries in which fuel for agricultural purposes is cheaper than fuel for industrial purposes.

In this country too.

Wait a minute, I have not finished. In other countries vehicles imported for agricultural purposes are cheaper than vehicles imported for industrial purposes.

In this country too.

I am sure the hon. the Minister will get another turn to speak. I wonder why the Minister always makes so many interjections during the discussion of his Vote. So many of the other Ministers sit and listen to hon. members’ arguments and when the last member resumes his seat, they stand up and speak. That is why I made the remark yesterday about courtesy. I hope it will not be necessary for me to do so again.

I want to speak about our droughts, which were mentioned here this afternoon by the hon. member for Namaqualand, and especially about the disastrous drought. We are very grateful for the abundant rains which have fallen in parts of the North-West, but in the Eastern Karoo and the Eastern Cape difficulties are still being experienced. On a previous occasion I submitted a plea to the Minister in respect of the Karoo. I mentioned the extent of the Karoo and said that a method should be applied whereby the veld there could be rehabilitated and the grazing improved. We all know that we are here only temporarily, the farmer as well. All of us are only temporary sojourners on this earth. But the earth and the land and the grazing continue to exist, and they must, or our descendants will taste the bitter fruits. I asked the Minister that a plan be drawn up which would apply to the whole of the Great Karoo. Surely there must be ways of helping a man to conserve a portion of his veld for two summers. Precautions can be taken to ensure that he will not allow it to be grazed upon during the following year, especially if the veld is then lush and the portion which he is using is barren. The Minister’s reaction was to ask what man would keep his livestock away from food if he saw that there was food next to them on his own farm? There must be ways in which this proposal can be implemented. Every farmer who knows the Karoo and grew up there, who knows it from one corner to the other, knows that the veld will not be rehabilitated unless we have wonderful years consecutively over a long period, or unless means are applied to rehabilitate the grazing in the Karoo. I want to make an appeal to the Minister and the Department once again to find means whereby we can make a grazing conservation area of the whole of the Karoo. Perhaps it can be done on the basis of dividing the land into two parts. Then one half must not be used for two summers. If it is done on a basis of one-third of the land, then that one-third must not be used for grazing for two summers. In the one case it will take four years, in the other six years. It will of course cost the State money, even if it is on the present basis of R8 for six sheep and R8 for one head of cattle. It will still provide an income to the farmer. The farmer cannot make ends meet without this income, because in his reduced financial position he is unable to allow half of his veld to lie fallow for two successive summers. I am convinced that this is the only method which can be applied. If the two sides of the House can reach agreement on this, without remarks being slung to and fro, inter alia, questions about how it can be done at this stage, and so forth, we shall be able to find a way to tackle this matter.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Christiana is reclining in his bench and making interjections. I cannot hear what he is saying. He has been making interjections all day. He is too fond of doing so.

The hon. the Minister referred to an inter-departmental committee which has been appointed and he mentioned a long list of terms of reference in this connection. One of their terms of reference is to determine “where do you farm with what, how do you farm with it, what land must be withdrawn and what land not.” I want to repeat: As far as the Great Karoo is concerned, an inter-departmental committee can do nothing about the matter, because that area is only suitable for sheep-farming and for nothing else. As long as the farmers there are farming with sheep, means will have to be applied to ensure that the people there can continue farming with sheep. Otherwise we must withdraw that area from farming and get out of that part of the world, because we are turning it into a desert. Then the farmers there can all come and stay here along the coast.

I want the hon. the Minister to listen now, because I am going to do something which is not easily done from this side of the House. I want to thank the Minister very sincerely for the announcement he made here this afternoon in respect of assistance by the Department of Agricultural Credit in respect of the provision of housing for farm labourers. This is a step in the right direction for which we are all very grateful. I hope that the other suggestions which sometimes come from this side of the House will also meet with the Minister’s approval. Perhaps he will see his way clear in connection with this droughtߪ

You imagine that you are still governing the country.

That would be a wonderful thing. I am sorry that the Minister always laughs about it when we speak of the disastrous conditions caused by the drought.

You are labouring under the delusion that that side is still governing the country.

I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that if this situation does not improve, he will not be Minister for very much longer, nor have the opportunity to laugh about this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London (City) complained about the pattern according to which prices are determined and about the fact that the farmers had decreased in number by about 30,000 over the past years.

I said 10 years.

In the past 10 years. He also maintained that farmers received only 2 per cent on their investment and said that there were a few alternatives by means of which we could rectify the matter. He was not very clear on this point, but the first deduction that I made was that the price of land had to be reduced so that the farmer could receive a better rate of interest on his investment, or otherwise his production costs had to be reduced. One would like to hear the hon. member and other hon. members opposite making positive suggestions in this regard so that we could hear what we could do to rectify this extremely difficult situation. I feel that some of the suggestions made here were simply dreamed up and do not hold water. I shall try to return to this later.

I first want to make the statement that we should utilize our soil judiciously, and in order to do so, it is essential to prevent the development of uneconomic units and the subdivision of land, which make it impossible to earn a proper livelihood on the excessively small pieces of land. This is a very important matter, and the hon. the Minister also referred to it. I want to make a few suggestions. Another matter to which I also want to refer is the danger inherent in wind erosion, especially in those areas where land is ploughed and the rainfall is very uncertain. I am thinking especially of areas with a low rainfall. A few years ago we had dust storms in certain areas, and the wind erosion which is taking place presents a serious threat to the whole of the Republic. Therefore I consider it extremely necessary to devise plans to prevent it. I know that research is being done in respect of wind erosion and that guidance will possibly be given to those farmers who are affected by it. However, it is going to be extremely difficult to save the situation in areas in which the rainfall is uncertain, unless drastic measures are applied.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order 23.