Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a sorrowful occasion for this House. Had I not heard it myself I would never have believed that the hon. the Minister of Finance could have, or would have made the speech that he did. Yesterday the hon. the Minister was a very angry man. We do not complain about that. We all get angry at times. But, Sir, have you ever analysed why a man gets angry? It is always because he is in the wrong. One’s anger increases in direct proportion to the weakness of one’s case. This is what happened to my friend, the hon. the Minister of Finance yesterday. When he attempted, as he did in only one or two cases, to answer some of the questions that had been put by us in Second Reading or during the no-confidence debate, the replies were completely unconvincing. When he levelled accusations against us his accusations were devoid of fact. And on the 64 dollar question of today, where are we going, we had the same reticence that we have experienced over the past two months. There were no answers from the hon. the Minister of any import.

Mr. Speaker, we have been debating the economic position of South Africa for some three weeks. We have discussed the “ifs” and the “whys” of intensified import control and of devaluation almost ad nauseam. While the country waits for some lead from hon. members opposite, the hon. the Minister continues to draw red herrings across the trail. Yesterday the hon. the Minister asked what our views were on intensified import control. The hon. the Minister knows well enough what our view is. On 24th November the Minister issued his statement that import control was to be intensified. The next day, on 25th November, I gave an interview to the Press. This is what was reported—

and I hope that is clear—

Now we come to the devaluation by the United States in December. Again I gave an interview to the Press on the following day which was reported as follows—

I hope that is now clear enough.

What did Constantia say?

It does not matter what Constantia said. I at the moment speak for the United Party on these issues. The hon. the Minister knows that. I do not want to start discussing differences of opinion on that side of the House because half an hour will be nowhere long enough. Those are our views and they are quite clear.

Now we come to the situation that since that date we have both intensified import control and devaluation running side by side. Here again we have made our position quite clear. We do not believe that side by side with devaluation you can have intensified import control, certainly not for more than an absolute minimum period. I said that before in this House and today I want to add: And only if your balance of payments position is as critical as ours was and I believe still is at the moment. The hon. the Minister says that the intensification of import control was in full conformity with GATT obligations. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister: Have GATT agreed that devaluation plus import control at the same time are permissible? The hon. the Minister must not be fooled by the old precept that attack is the best form of defence. Sometimes one finds that when the armaments of the person you attack are very much stronger than those with which you attack, you are liable to take an awful beating.

The hon. the Minister says our arithmetic is weak—we cannot do the most elementary sums. He gave a number of examples, and I should like to refer to two of them. First of all, there is his story and that of the Reserve Bank, that inflation from December, 1970, to December, 1971, was not 7,1 per cent but only 4 per cent. The hon. the Minister says we must deduct from the 7,1 per cent, increases in sales taxes and other direct taxes, and in a number of Government administered prices. These were largely concentrated in the second quarter of 1971. These come to some 3 per cent. I have said to the hon. the Minister before, and I want to repeat it, that he must stop playing the fool with the public. The cost of living went up by 7,1 per cent. It costs the public 7,1 per cent more now than it cost them a year ago to acquire the same goods or services. Nothing the hon. the Minister nor the Government or the Reserve Bank can say, will stop the taxpayer’s rand from buying 7,1 per cent less. This is the position. The hon. the Minister then referred to his reference in Die Transvaler, where he said that the cost of living was going to come down as from March this year.

No, no.

The hon. the Minister said that he explained this in his Second Reading speech and then he added, “But the Opposition does not understand anything of it”. I agree with the hon. the Minister; he is quite correct. We do not understand it. We do not understand it at all, and because we do not understand it, I hope the hon. the Minister when he replies to this debate will be good enough to tell this House, as I asked him to in the Second Reading but which he failed to do, that devaluation will not reduce the buying power of the rand. The country wants to know, and the expert is the hon. the Minister. He should also tell us whether he expects a rise in the cost of living in 1972 or not. I asked him that as well in the Second Reading, but I have not had a reply. The third thing I asked him was: If he does expect a rise, what is his estimate of the rate of inflation for 1972? If the hon. the Minister fails to reply again in his reply to this debate, he must not be angry with us if we use the figure most economists are using, namely 7 to 10 per cent, as the anticipated increase in inflation for 1972. The hon. the Minister took me very severely to task for saying that he had done nothing for 23 years to raise tariffs, and alternatively, if something had been done that he should stop harping back to 1947 and stop saying that the United Party has tied us up with GATT. The hon. the Minister now tells us that hundreds and hundreds of items have had rises in their tariffs, and he says that I do not know that some items are bound. Of course I know that some items are bound, but if we have had tariff raises in hundreds and hundreds of items which the hon. the Minister has been talking about, surely he must now stop blaming us for these few tariffs that we have not been able to amend since 1947. He should not give the general impression that the whole reason for import control is because the United Party tied up all tariffs in 1947 and if the impression …

I never said that.

That is the impression which is being given, and it has not been said once, but it was said ad nauseam, that we, the United Party had tied these items in 1947, so what can the poor Government do? Then the hon. the Minister made a few rather scathing remarks about the small sum of R80 million that South Africa under a United Party Government …

Pounds.

I am sorry, it is £80 million which South Africa, under a United Party Government, lent to Great Britain. The hon. member said that the U.P. had left the country in such a shocking state that the Nationalist Government had to get the money back as quickly as it could, that it had to impose import control and that it had to devalue in 1949. It is a very strange situation that it was under a Nationalist Government in 1949 that South Africa had to devalue and that it was under a Nationalist Government that South Africa had to do the same thing in 1971.

But we inherited it from you.

It is strange that it was as a result of the actions of a Nationalist Government that we had to have fusion in 1933 and then go off the gold standard. It is a strange thing that the Nationalist Government had to impose import control in 1949 because of the wicked United Party who left such a mess. But what is stranger still is that we still have import control. It is not 1949 any longer; it is 1972. Three months ago it was intensified. I suppose that we are to blame for that as well. The hon. the Minister read to the House a very favourable report from Dr. Lutz of Credit Swiss. What the hon. the Minister does not know is that this favourable report is probably due to the fact that I saw Dr. Lutz in Johannesburg and gave him the assurance that the present Government would not be in existence in 1975. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister left out a few very important words from Dr. Lutz’s report as it appeared in the Press. I want to read them to the House—

And “Coloured” to a Swiss means all our non-European races—

The hon. the Minister in defending import control made great play of the fact that in November he did not know that the monetary crisis was likely to end in December. He went so far as to say that it was anticipated that it might only end in February of this year or it might even only end at the end of 1972. The hon. the Minister is getting forgetful. He forgets that on the 6th of November he said that the international climate was on the verge of improvement. In the radio broadcast he gave on the 14th of November he said that he expected the monetary crisis to be solved. Surely the hon. the Minister thought that the situation was going to be rectified very shortly.

I did not know that America was going to devalue.

Mr. Speaker, at that stage the whole world was pretty certain that the United States was going to devalue.

“Pretty”!

Mr. Speaker, at the Second Reading I was very kind to the hon. the Minister. I said that two months of the breathing space that had been given to us by devaluation had passed, and that we had no lead from the Government. In point of fact, the hon. the Minister had been far more tardy, because I found among my papers, an interview that the hon. the Minister gave on the 24th December in which he said he had first thought seriously about devaluation on the 15th August. Therefore, the hon. the Minister had in mind on the 15th August that we might have to devalue. That is six months ago and not two months ago. I apologize for giving the hon. the Minister credit for an additional four months. What did we have from the hon. the Minister during these six months? Firstly, we had a series of philosophical dissertations stressing that devaluation was a desirable move; one almost from strength is the impression one would get listening to the hon. the Minister. He said that we were now poised for significant further development provided we all worked harder and saved more. I think it is correct to ask the hon. the Minister at this stage when he talks about this advancement we are going to make, how he reconciles our present growth rate with the G.D.P. He knows we are far behind. I think the country would like to know in view of this new optimism of the Minister’s, what has happened up till now. Secondly, there may be some reduction in taxation, the hon. the Minister says. If this should be so, at least the hon. the Minister has listened to us. The words he used, “the strength of our language”, has obviously brought this about. Thirdly, the hon. the Minister said that the credit ceiling might be relaxed, if he could find some other way to keep liquidity under control. Fourthly, he said that we must take the import gap created by devaluation. However, of course, he did not tell us how we are to take that gap. We shall have to send for Dr. Craven. This is not good enough. What the country is waiting for, as we have told the hon. the Minister repeatedly, is a blue-print of future Government intentions. The country now wants to be told what the Government intends doing to curb inflation in the short term and what the Government’s long-term strategy will be. The hon. the Minister says we are trying to bring down the Government by creating a psychosis of uncertainty. Surely, the truth is, unless we get a blue-print from this Government, they are going to bring the country down by continuing uncertainty and contradictory policies. South Africa has been clamouring for a firm economic policy and a clear statement of intent. They do not want a pragmatic programme of bits and pieces; a bit of yielding here and a bit of taking away there. The only way in which public fears are going to be allayed is by an overall plan, because the fear of the public is that the problems which brought devaluation now, are going to continue to exist. They fear that these problems will not be tackled in the future, just as they were not tackled in the past. In a few moments I am going to use words which I have never used in this House before. 1972 may be a good year for South Africa economically. There are prospects of good crops. There may be a reasonable amount of spare capacity to take up some of the lag created by devaluation and import control. We hope there will be an improvement in the balance of payments position. But unless the fundamental problems which brought us to the position we were in before devaluation, are solved, the benefits of devaluation are going to erode and after 1972 we are going to be heading straight for a recession. I have not used the words “a recession” in the past for more years than I can remember. There is no need for me to spell out what a recession would mean to South Africa.

The hon. the Minister says we must increase production; we must formulate capital by saving; and we must export. Of course we must do all these things. For how long have we been telling the hon. the Minister that these are the requirements of South Africa? For how long have we been telling this Government that it must change its philosophy from one of curbs, restrictions and controls to one of increased production, increased production and more increased production? To get production, one needs a blue-print which embodies a number of items which I dealt with both in the no-confidence debate and at the second reading of the Part Appropriation Bill. I want to reiterate some of these items Firstly, there is an enlightened labour policy. The hon. the Minister says we must use the labour we have. Of course, we must use the labour we have, but we must be able to train this labour to its maximum potential. Secondly, we cannot have a labour policy based on the amazing theory of “plekgebonde” industries, of which the Railways appears to be one.

Another fact is that the industrialist of this country is not going to set up new industries on the word of the hon. the Minister that he is going to get better labour facilities, while there is legislation on the Statute Book which tells him he cannot use that labour. If we are going to have, as the hon. the Minister is trying to indicate, a vital change in thinking by the Government in regard to its labour, they must change the relative Acts. That the country will believe; it will believe nothing else. The Physical Planning Act, for one, will have to be changed. We want a critical examination of all those controls, the retention of which is hindering South Africa and we want to remove those except for one or two which are absolutely essential. We do not, however, want the attitude shown by the hon. the Minister the other day, when he talked about the ceiling, and said “I cannot find another way”.

We need meaningful help for exporters, particularly by tax rebates. I hope the hon. the Minister will listen to what SAFTO said. After all, SAFTO is his creation. They have twice said in their annual reports what we have been saying year in and year out. A blue-print requires more. It requires a far-sighted Government. It requires a calm Government, not an angry Government. It requires a Government that can instil confidence into the people. Is this such a Government? Let us look at some of the things that have happened over the last 12 to 18 months. What have we had to encourage the people’s faith in this Government? Hire-purchase curbs were introduced, and changed twice within two months. A Budget deficit was announced by the hon. the Minister amounting to R35,6 million, but shortly afterwards some additional income was found and, Hey presto!, there was no longer a deficit. As regards the Agliotti affair we still have no answer. Then there was the issue of the motor vehicle insurance fund. It is a Government fund that has been investing its money in the grey market. The Bantu Investment Corporation is another fund of which it is alleged that its moneys are invested in the grey market and which paid a commission to private individuals for raising funds through this fund in the grey market. Then there was the fiasco—there is no other word—that a portion of all participating bond funds should be invested in Government securities. This is the Government that wants the country to have faith in the date of the directive coming into force it? They gave a directive, but postponed three times and then found, as they had been told ab initio, that the directive was not capable of implementation. What kind of a Government is this? They build a hospital in Johannesburg … I beg your pardon, they are still talking about building a hospital in Johannesburg which would have cost a quarter of the price if they had got on with the job. In this way three quarters of the R80 to R90 million could have been saved. The Government also has water schemes which in 1968 were estimated to cost R240 million, a figure which was reiterated by the Minister of Water Affairs on the 8th September, 1970. On the 18th May, 1971, the estimate was given as R385 million. The public of South Africa no longer have any faith in the empty vessels sitting in the front bench on the other side.

The hon. the Minister said yesterday that no political party can gain and maintain power by pure bread-and-butter politics and with a purely materialistic philosophy. I want to tell him that if the concept of a compassionate society, if respect for human dignity, if a place in the sun for all our people, and if a buoyant and expansive economy so that our 20 million inhabitants can all have a better standard of living, are materialistic, then the United Party under my hon. leader on my right is a materialistic party. We would rather be branded for this kind of materialism than for having a 19th century ideological philosophy that has not worked, is not working and will never work. It is a philosophy that has borne heavily on all the people, but which benefited very few. I believe that it is this materialistic United Party, the party that postulates an orderly advance of change, so that all the people of South Africa can go forward together, each with a sense of personal security to a better way of life, to a life free from want, to a life of opportunity, to a life of increasing living standards and to a life that is purposeful and meaningful for all the people of South Africa, that can draw the plans of the grand design we need so desperately. I believe that it can implement these plans and can implement a wide concept and a broad vision for 20 million people. I believe it is the United Party which can give South Africa the prosperity it needs and the prosperity it deserves. Prosperity is the one basic need that can lead us to peace and progress. These two are the twin pillars on which the future of this country rests. Without peace we will have no progress, without progress we will have no peace. The only people who can give these twin pillars to the people of South Africa is the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown will pardon me for not following him up, but there are other matters I want to deal with. I want to start the race against the clock at once. I want to return to the speech made here last Friday by the hon. member for Simonstown. I want to start off by saying that I gave notice today of a motion that a Select Committee should investigate certain assertions made by the hon. member. Even if it were in order, I do not want to be so presumptuous as to discuss here today those assertions which I shall request a Select Committee to investigate. In other words, I am not going to discuss them. I am going to discuss other assertions made by the hon. member in his speech, which one could normally expect of someone who is not fully informed and who wants to make some political capital out of them, but which do not cast reflections on anyone’s integrity. Sir, there is an old proverb which runs: “One fool can put more questions than ten wise men can answer”. In saying this I do not want to suggest that the hon. member is a fool, but I do want to suggest— I think hon. members will appreciate this —that it is going to be very difficult for me, as one ordinary person instead of ten wise men, to reply in the time at my disposal to all those assertions made and all the questions put by the hon. member in the time at his disposal.

I want to come at once to what the hon. member had to say about Dr. Lochner’s theory and all the criticism he expressed in that regard. There is one facet of the criticism he expressed in connection with Dr. Lochner’s theory which I am not going to discuss, because I believe it will perhaps fall within the ambit of the Select Committee which I am going to ask for. I just want to repeat briefly what I said in this House on previous occasions. If Dr. Lochner’s theory can be proved to be correct and to have a proper scientific basis, it will be a very important scientific break-through for the world, because the entire world is struggling with this problem of how to determine the fish population and what the optimal catch aimed at should be. The first point I want to mention, and which I mentioned on previous occasions as well, is that the application of Dr. Lochner’s theory will have serious implications, so serious that it would be the height of folly to apply it while there is a whole host of scientists and people as prominent in the scientific world as Dr. Lochner who have criticized his theory and are not prepared to support it.

Who are they?

In the course of my speech I shall mention several names of people who criticize it. Apart from Dr. Lochner, I do not know of one scientist in the world today who adopts the attitude that his theory has been proved. Sir, consider the implications of his theory. The hon. member said on Friday that I had left my people in the lurch. If that hon. member had in fact been in the position of being able to do what he advocated on Friday, does he realize, for example, what he would have done to Walvis Bay? Does he realize what would have happened if he had applied Dr. Lochner’s theory in Walvis Bay this year, in 1972? Does he realize how many of the nine and more factories in South-West Africa would function, and function reasonably normally, when the season opened, if Dr. Lochner’s theory were applied? If that theory were applied, there would have been work for at the most, say, two factories. The other factories would have had to stand there. Does the hon. member realize what he would have done to Walvis Bay? Now he complains that I left my people in the lurch. Sir, it would be the height of irresponsibility to do this to an industry and to deprive South Africa immediately of those millions of rands, about which he was so dramatic on Friday, on the basis of a theory which is accepted by only one scientist as far as I know, namely Dr. Lochner himself.

The hon. member suggested by implication—this is how I interpreted him—that the position in South-West Africa seemed so dangerous that the quota of 298 000 tons could not even be filled and that 3 000 tons less had been caught. In order to remove all misunderstanding in regard to those 298 000 tons, let me tell the hon. member at once that there was no question of its not having been possible to fill the quota, and that it is a fact that a maximum catch attempt was not made in South-West Africa; neither by the land-based factories, nor by the factory ship Willem Barendsz. As far as both those parties are concerned, there is ample proof of that. If the hon. member wants me to produce the proof, I shall do so, but he knows it himself. It appeared from his speech that he knew that no optimum catch attempt had been made. The explanation for that 3 000 tons is simply that some factories over-fished a little and some factories under-fished a little, and that in respect of pilchard catches—and this is what is concerned here— they adhered to the quota to which they were pegged in the first place and the closing date of the season caught them. Furthermore, as we know from previous years, it is a fact that the factory at Lüderitz, Angra Pequena, finds it difficult to reach its quota, just as it failed to reach it this year. In other words, that 3 000 tons signifies absolutely nothing; it carries absolutely no weight at all. The hon. member’s plea is that Dr. Lochner’s theory was correct to within 1 per cent over the past few years. I want to say to the hon. member that if any scientist—Dr. Lochner or any other—could prove a theory which, for example, is correct to within 10 per cent— but he must come and prove it—it would be a fantastic break-through. As a result of that formula, we would then immediately be able to eliminate the considerable cost we have to incur in respect of research.

May I put a question?

Sir, when the hon. member was speaking and attacked my integrity, I did not interfere with him. I expect him not to interrupt me either.

Take your medicine.

Sir, I am not a scientist, and I have always adopted the attitude that I cannot judge Dr. Lochner’s theory, and Dr. Lochner knows this as well as I do. Whom am I to rely on? I have to rely on other scientists to judge Dr. Lochner’s theory. But, as I have said if he could prove that his theory was correct to within 10 per cent, it would be a fantastic break-through, but then it must be proved. What do I, as a layman, know about this? As a layman I know that in the past year, 1971, the catches by the factories as well as by the Willem Barendsz more or less corresponded with Dr. Lochner’s estimate of the optimum or maximum catch. The hon. member for Simonstown can get the entire Walvis Bay fishing industry and the Willem Barendsz people as witnesses to the fact that many more pilchards could have been caught had they been allowed to catch more. The hon. member says I have left my people in the lurch by allowing too many fish to be caught. Sir, far from it; if “my people” in South-West Africa—and I am referring more particularly to Walvis Bay now and I am using the phrase “my people” in quotation marks as he used it—are of the opinion that I have left them in the lurch, then it is because I am allowing them too small a quantity of fish. The picture is then the very reverse, with the knowledge they have of the industry there. Sir, suspicion is continually being cast on our Division of Sea Fisheries. Let me just quote to you what Dr. Lochner said in regard to his work and the Division of Sea Fisheries; I am quoting from South African Shipping: A News and Fishing Industry Review, December, 1970. Dr. Lochner wrote an article about his work here and concluded it as follows—

But the people in this Division are the people on whom suspicion is being cast in respect of Dr. Lochner’s work. I have here a memorandum from the Director of Sea Fisheries, Dr. de Jager, a scientist who has devoted a large part, if not the best part, of his life to research in respect of our fishing resources. Time will not permit me to read everything to you, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to quote the following (translation)—

Sir, I can continue in this vein, but I do not want to devote any more of my time to this.

Will you make that report available?

It is not a report. It is the type of memorandum of which hundreds are submitted during the year to Ministers and Deputy Ministers for their information. The hon. member said the Commission of Inquiry into Fisheries in South-West Africa and in South Africa had appointed a subcommittee to investigate Dr. Lochner’s theory and asked why they had not reported back subsequently. At this stage I think I should just remind the hon. member again that it is probably two years now since I extended an invitation to him in a private conversation, because I thought at the time that he had a positive interest in our fishing industry, and not a negative one, as I am beginning to believe now. I invited him, when he had problems in regard to our fishing industry, to come and discuss them with me. He has never yet done so.

He only wants to gossip.

That committee which was appointed by the commission to investigate Dr. Lochner’s theory, when he submitted it for the first time, then proceeded to investigate it. They consulted other prominent scientists, whose names are mentioned here. Now we have the comments of the chairman of the commission. He mentions Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson is a South African marine biologist who studied population dynamics in the U.S.A. He was also called in, together with Prof. Göldner and Dr. van Aarde. The chairman of the commission says this (translation)—

And I hope the hon. member knows whom I am talking about when I refer to Mr. Gulland—

This is the picture as far as that is concerned.

Then the hon. member quoted from a report in Die Burger of November, 1971, in order to prove that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs had told an untruth when he said that Dr. Lochner was not prepared to have his theories tested. This was in November, 1971. A month or two before November, 1971, Dr. Lochner intimated to me that he was prepared to have his theory tested by a panel of South African scientists. In other words, he was correct in this, but the doubt which the hon. member cast on the Minister of Economic Affairs is not correct. The hon. member pointed out quite piously that Dr. Lochner laid down two requirements for his work to be judged by a panel of scientists. The first was that they should be able to understand the work and the second that they should not be interested parties. Who is going to judge whether they can understand his work? Thus far Dr. Lochner has found that all scientists I know of, except one, do not understand his work. If a scientist does not understand Dr. Lochner’s work, I expect him to say so in his report. He must not make other findings. In other words, all these scientists who have studied Dr. Lochner’s work are dishonourable people, except one. Dr. Lochner himself told me that one scientist understood his work. A few days ago I received provisional comments from that scientist. Dr. Lochner is not going to be very happy about those comments. According to Dr. Lochner, this is the only person who understands his work.

Prof. Wiley.

Who is now to decide who the committee panel is to be that must judge Dr. Lochner’s work? It seems to me he reserves the right to himself to decide whether they understand his work, otherwise they are not competent. In spite of the fact that Dr. Lochner is a good friend of mine, I come to the conclusion that as soon as a scientist does not agree with him, that person does not understand his work and is therefore not competent to judge it. Now they say that it should not be interested parties. The hon. member referred to interested parties in the fishing industry. Dr. Lochner goes much further than that. In all fairness to Dr. Lochner I do not want to elaborate any further on that. But Dr. Lochner goes further than that. He not only demands that they should not be interested parties in the fishing industry. He goes much further.

Over against this picure, the hon. member is trying to ridicule our research. Let us look at his speech. He is trying to ridicule the work which has been done over so many years by dedicated people, and well-trained people at that.

I did not say that.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to quote, because I do not have the time for that. However, I can refer the hon. member to the relevant pages of his speech if he wants to know. These are near the end of his speech when he threw the work of our scientists out of the window and said that we should apply Dr. Lochner’s theory. I am telling that hon. member that these people—and I do not want to dramatize—are literally risking their lives in order to try to obtain information on our fish resources. I, and I think the hon. member for Simonstown as well, would not be prepared to do what those people are doing by flying over the sea in a small aeroplane at night, and that off the Skeleton Coast, north of Walvis Bay. If something went wrong with that aeroplane, they would not even be able to see where they could execute an emergency landing. These people do this because they can make better observations at night. Their work is of world standard. South Africa is not behind the rest of the world. But their work is thrown out of the window. There is no doubt about that. They keep in touch with every new trend and direction in world research in this regard. As I have said, they are well-trained people. It seems as though I am losing the race against the clock.

Mention was made of Prof. C. A. du Toit, a person who cannot defend himself in this House. The hon. member said that if the subcommittee which had to investigate Dr. Lochner’s theory, had accepted his theory and recommendations, the factory ships would have had to leave. This would have meant tremendous losses for the companies concerned. There is no logic in that statement. On what grounds would he have told the factory ships to leave? They were there just as legally as the land-based factories, except where they transgressed. They were in fact there legally. On what grounds would he have told them to leave? On what grounds does the hon. member assert here that they would have suffered tremendous losses had Dr. Lochner’s theory, if it were right, been applied?

Have the factory ships not ruined the pilchard resources?

If Dr. Lochner’s theory were correct and if it had been applied, it would eventually have led to a profit for the factory ships. If his theory were correct, everybody concerned in the industry would have benefited. The hon. member’s mind simply does not work well enough for him to see further than the mere implications at this moment. Furthermore, he asked: Could Prof. C. A. du Toit therefore be expected to make such a recommendation? That is to say, a recommendation by the committee investigating Dr. Lochner’s theory, that his theory should be accepted. Can one imagine greater stupidity—to use that word? If a scientist came to me, a farmer, and told me that I was making fantastic profits out of my farm today, but that he was going to prove to me that I was ruining my farm’s production capacity so that in a few years’ time I would no longer produce, I would be a foolish farmer if I told that scientist that I rejected his advice. On the contrary, because it would be in my interests, I would say that I should like to work in accordance with his theories and experience. The same applies here to any interested party in the industry. If Dr. Lochner’s theory were correct, it would be in their greatest interests that that theory should be applied. That is why I say that the hon. member’s mind is working the wrong way round. He made a great issue of the face that Prof. C. A. du Toit served on the commission in addition to serving on this committee. He wanted to know whether Prof. du Toit had declared his interests in the fishing industry, as the hon. member alleges—I do not know whether this is the position—to the chairman of the commission. If Prof. du Toit had interests which he should have declared, he should have done so to the Minister and not to the chairman of the commission. I have had inquiries made, but I cannot find any such declaration. It may have been an oral declaration, or there may even have been no declaration at all. However, I want to say that I am not in the least interested whether Prof. du Toit has interests in the fishing industry or not, for the reasons I have mentioned. If I had had to compose that commission, my attitude would have been that I would have appointed somebody from the industry to that commission. That would have been my attitude, and it seems to me to be the correct thing to do. After all it is in the interests of Prof. du Toit, if he is an interested party, to try to save the industry and not to try to destroy it. Surely one does not think so foolishly. The hon. member spoke about the Suiderland company. He mentioned persons’ names in this regard. Suiderland has received no concessions that I know of from anyone. As far as I know, Suiderland bought its interests in the fishing industry at competitive prices. What is more, fish are not its main interest; its interests extend in other directions. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to be an expert on fishing. Therefore I do not intend to fish in the waters which the hon. the Deputy Minister has been churning up for the last 40 minutes. All I can say is that quite clearly the hon. member for Simonstown must have a pretty powerful case, because here we have the leading finance speaker launching, on behalf of the Opposition, an attack on the Government’s financial mismanagement in a Part Appropriation debate, and the Deputy Minister of Finance gets up and talks for 40 minutes on a single industry’s problems. Important it must be, important it is, as the hon. member for Simonstown has said. But if the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance can go no further than that in dealing with the economic problems of South Africa as a whole, then it is no wonder that people are talking of the “hathungry” Senator as the hon. the Minister of Finance’s successor and not the Deputy Minister.

What have we had? The hon. member for Parktown pointed out that point after point has been raised by this side of the House and that we have had no answer from the Government on the real fundamental issues. We received no answers on the things that matter for South Africa and for the people of South Africa. The hon. the Minister treated us to a lot of Confucius one year, but …

Vause, you must bury the rotten fish now.

… he reminds me of another philosopher, also one who would probably have been classified as “other coloured”. That philosopher said that he used to frequent doctors and saints and heard much argument, but “ever more came out by the same door as in he went”. That is what it is like talking to this Government: You talk but ever you come out by the same door as in you went. I can see who the doctor was, but I do not see any saints around. The hon. the Minister is certainly not one, because in his speech yesterday he attacked me on something he alleged I had said in a former debate. Not only is the hon. the Minister not running our financial situation, but he is having hallucinations. I did not speak in the Second Reading debate, and in the former debate to which he refers I did not once refer to the subject he criticized me about; I have read my Hansard. What is it then? Hallucination, imagination, or credibility gap? That is the sort of answer you get, namely an attack on something which was not even said. The arguments of the Government are like the hon. member for Waterberg who goes round and round in ever-decreasing circles—like a certain bird; but the trouble is that it does not disappear. What the people want is for it to reach the disappearing point, because quite clearly on financial issues, it does not have any direction.

I happened to look at what happened in another country which had economic troubles. It was interesting to read President Nixon’s address on the fight against inflation delivered in October last year. In this address you find that he announced a policy to create half a million new jobs within one year. He announced the price-wage freeze—with which we do not agree, but at least it was positive action. He established a cost-of-living council. He appointed a Government committee on interest and dividends. He appointed a pay board to stop inflationary increases. He took steps to ensure that there would be reasonable profits and said that “more profits fuel the expansion that generates more jobs”. This is positive. He said very clearly—

That is this Government. He continues—

That is the approach of another country towards its problems. Here it is just accepted that prices must go up and up.

What do we get from this Cabinet? We find the hon. the Minister of the Interior saying—and I am not quoting from a United Party source, but from Volkshandel of January, 1972, i.e. last month—

He said, further—

Dealing with insolvencies, he says—

Who said that?

The hon. the Minister of the Interior. He also said—

*These are the words of an hon. Minister who bears joint responsibility for the financial administration of South Africa. He is the man who tells the people: “We are living too high. Our standard of living is too high. Our houses are too large and too luxurious; our housing standards is probably the highest in the world”. Of course we had the hon. the Minister of Immigration and Social Welfare and Pensions and the hon. the Minister of Labour repudiating him immediately. They were not only repudiating the hon. the Minister of the Interior, because here I have a quotation of what the hon. the Prime Minister him self said. The article reads: “People are living high”, and it comes from Die Transvaler, in which the hon. the Prime Minister said the following (translation)—

He said—

and then went on to say—

So here we have two members of the Cabinet differing with the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. the Prime Minister. It is undermining the Prime Minister’s authority. But what are the facts?

It is the Sunday Times again.

It is not the Sunday Times I am quoting from, but Die Transvaler. I may mention in passing that, had the Sunday Times not existed, there would not have been one member opposite who would have still been able to make a speech. In that case we would have had absolute silence from the Government benches, because no hon. member and very few Ministers would have been able to make a speech.

†But I want to test this allegation by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior that we are living too high. Perhaps there are people who live too high; perhaps they speak from personal experience. They now have beautiful new offices up in the sky; they have huge offices, each carpeted to their individual choice and the choice of their wives. I understand that the hon. the Minister of Sport does not always make his own choice when it comes to furnishings, but I think the Prime Minister chooses his own carpets. But if one looks at those huge offices one can understand what living high is. The hon. the Prime Minister has his own garage; he can drive in and the doors close behind him. He also has a private lift up to the top. We do not all have private lifts and huge offices. When we talk about living high, we are talking about the average South African citizen. I want to see what is happening to the average citizen. I ask hon. members on the Government side to take a walk with me to meet ordinary people. I ask the Ministers to take a walk with me to meet ordinary people because I do not know when they last met an ordinary housewife. The hon. the Minister of the Interior, in an article in the South African Digest, said that we were the lowesttaxed country out of the 15 most important countries of the world and he gave figures. He also says we are the highest paid and he quotes examples. He also says that the cost of living is the slowest-growing amongst a whole list of countries. I want to look at this Garden of Eden in which we live, and which the hon. the Minister says has all these wonderful things.

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs also made his contribution. He says “Pryse word fyn dopgehou. Dié versekering het die Minister van Ekonomiese Sake gisteraand aan Die Transvaler gegee”. So we have some Ministers saying that we are living too high, another that taxes are the lowest and another that prices are being watched. They are being watched, but they are having to use more powerful telescopes to keep them in view. I have done a little investigation in regard to these taxes the hon. the Minister of Finance talks about, and they do not tell you that these taxes apply in countries with automatic unemployment insurance, with state medical health schemes, with automatic old-age pensions not based on means tests, and so on. They do not tell you that on the Order Paper are three proposals for a new kind of hidden taxation. They are now called “contributions” instead of taxes. You have contributions from employers, contributions for transport, contributions from housewives, contributions for Coloured transport, contributions for Indian transport subsidies, and a contribution towards road safety. You have contribution after contribution that does not appear in these taxes. We do not get all these benefits. By the time you have taken off medical aid, unemployment insurance and the rest, and added it to the taxation, and then you look at a man’s salary you have a very different comparison when you compare it with the salary and taxes of a man in an overseas country. Then they tell us we must not worry.

The hon. the Minister of Finance made great play in his speech yesterday of the wonderful position of the pensioner. He talked of the pensioner whose pension has gone up from R12 to R38, an increase of 220 per cent, and said that the rand has only dropped in value by 55 per cent, namely from R1 to 45 cents. Then he does another calculation with percentages and suddenly finds that the buying power of the rand has dropped by 220 per cent, but the pension has gone up by 320 per cent. Now I am not a very great expert at percentages. I do not pretend to understand these things very well. I understand simple figures, and I understand that the pensioner must have a roof over his head. He has to live somewhere; I understand that a person who has to bring up a family needs a house to live in; I understand that a house which 30 odd years ago cost, say, £4 000 is now worth R18 000 or R20 000; I do not understand what the percentage is, but I know it would cost twice as much. I know that if I wanted to build my own house now, it would cost twice as much as the £4 000 I paid for it in 1951. I have been offered it.

Good profit.

Good profit, but if I let it I would let it for twice as much. If I wanted to rent a house, I would have to pay twice as much or more than I paid in 1948. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this 55 per cent drop in the value of the pensioner’s money and the 220 per cent increase. I just understand that a house, flat or room costs two to three times as much. The result is that he has to move down and down the ladder of quality of accommodation until today the pensioner with no family to help him is living in a hovel, in a back room somewhere. He cannot find a place which he can afford out of R38. Then that pensioner has to eat. Unless he goes on a banana diet, which is the only item I can find which went down in price recently, he is going to pay far more than any increase in pension he has had. It is not only the pensioner who is affected; it is everyone.

I have here figures, from the Bulletin on Statistics for the last 50 years, which gives a comparison of certain essential items. Bread in 1948, when this Government took over the bankrupt U.P. State, cost 3½ cent for 1 lb. Today it costs 11 cent for a 2-lb. loaf, thus an increase from 7 cents to 11 cents. That is a staple food which the Government subsidizes but it has just gone up. A 25 lb. bag of flour has gone up from 88,7 cents to 167,8 cents. That to me makes an increase of 100 per cent in any language, whether I understand it or not. It is twice as much.

What are the dates?

I am quoting the figures for 1948 and August, 1971, from the Bulletin on Statistics for the last 50 years, of December, 1971. Rice was 8,1 cents per lb. It is now 17,1 for 500 gr. That to me is double. I cannot work it out in any other way according to the arithmetic I learnt at school. I did not learn the new mathematics, which apparently the Minister uses. Rump steak was 22,3 cents per lb; now it is 61 cents per lb—nearly three times as much. Sirloin was 15,5 cents per lb; now it costs 47 cents per lb—more than three times as much. Leg of mutton has gone up from 14,8 cents to 46,1 cents per lb. The Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs has gone now, but I will tell him something fishy. Fish has gone up from 8,1 cents per lb. to 26,4 cents per lb— more than three times as much. The price of milk varies in different places, but apart from having gone up according to the official statistics from 4,8 cents to 7,8 cents per pint, when they metricated and we were provided with a dirty, plastic pollution container which you can never destroy, there was an increase in the price of milk over and above the net increase itself. So, you not only got a plastic container, but you have to pay more for both the container and the milk. Butter has gone up from 30 cents per lb. to 51,6 cents. Our imported butter landed here at 25 cents per lb. but butter has gone up, as I say, from 30 cents per lb. to 51 cents. I shall not go through all these items, but here are a few more: The cost of coffee increased from 27,9 cents to 57 cents for 500 grams. Jam increased from 18 cents to 33 cents, and coal from 21 cents to 70 cents for 100 lbs.

And soap?

Yes, soap has remained the same. It was 8,6 cents per lb, and it is now 15,2 cents per kg, so it is roughly the same. But then soap is used only by those who want to keep clean. It therefore does not make all that much difference to those who do not really appreciate its value. One could go on naming these items. Here are two more: petrol and floor polish, and then the hon. the Minister says: “Yes, but they are getting 220 per cent more than what they were paid then”. But this is what they have to pay if they want to eat, unless they go on a banana diet. Hardly any of these items has increased by less than a hundred to 200 per cent. In the case of only one of these items I have mentioned has the price remained roughly the same. And so you have the picture regarding the problem of eating.

But then a person must travel. The cost of public transport in the last year has gone up by 8,3 per cent alone. Taxi fares have increased, in the last year alone, by 60 per cent. The cost of cars, because of local content requirements, has increased by R70 to R120. Sales tax has meant another 5 per cent on to the price and devaluation has meant another increase of 14-odd per cent. Repairs have gone up from R4 to R6 per hour; tyres have gone up R5 per set. Parking in the bigger towns has nearly doubled. Car insurance has been increased by 20 per cent. All this has happened in one year. And then they say, as this headline puts it; “Pryse fyn dopgehou”. They may be watching the prices, Sir, but they do not do much about it.

Then we come to clothes. Suits have gone up by between R5 and R10 during the last year, and dresses R3. I wonder if any of these members had to uniform a child going to boarding school for the first time last month. The cost of a child’s school uniform is more than double what it was five years ago. A simple little dress costs R7. To outfit a child going to school today with uniforms will cost you R200 or more.

Never!

I said “up to” … [Interjections.] You see, Sir, some of us are proud of our children. Some of us want them to dress decently. Some of us want them to go to decent schools and not to feel ashamed because they only have one dress and they have to run around in a towel while they are washing that dress. And so it costs some of us more than it costs others who do not have that pride in wanting their children to look decent.

What is a “decent school”?

Mine is a Government school, as it happens. Then we come to medical costs, Sir. I know my hon. friend here will not like me saying this, but I think the increase in medical costs in South Africa is an absolute scandal. I am speaking not only of the cost of medical treatment, but of medicines and all things associated with it. Here is an example I know about, because I had to pay the account. To have three teeth removed by a dental specialist costs R70 for the extraction alone. These were three impacted wisdom teeth. This used to be a simple operation which cost you R10 or R15.

That will be the day!

Yes, Sir, that member is one of those who charges R70; I am one of those who has to pay. We try to cover ourselves with medical aid but you cannot get medical aid for under R20 to R25 a month if you want any sort of decent coverage for your family. It costs you R250 a year, and then you still have to pay your excess.

Then there are all the other simple day-to-day costs, such as haircuts. And as for holidays! Anybody trying to take a family on holiday and living in a hotel must be a Nationalist Cabinet Minister. He could not be anything else and be able to afford it. And then, Sir, they say we must have productivity: but mothers must go out to work, and then the Minister of Bantu Administration says they must have babies. The Deputy Minister says they must not have servants, and the Minister of Finance taxes them for what they earn. This is the situation in which this Government has landed mothers. When we talk about these things in a financial debate, when we raise these issues that affect every South African citizen, we find the Government talking about “Kommunisme”, “die Rooi gevaar” and “die Swart gevaar”—red herrings and any sort of smokescreen—so long as they do not have to talk about the cost of living and the burden of the ordinary South African. Is it any wonder that you get the bouncing member for Mayfair bubbling back and forth out of pure frustration with a Government which he admits does not care a jot for the ordinary citizen and his ordinary day-to-day problems. This Government, Sir, has forgotten the problems of the people. It used to know them; it used to care about people years ago, but it has forgotten what it is like to be an ordinary citizen without the privileges of power. But the people have not forgotten and will not forget this Government’s attitude, and I say that the days are past when you could bluff the people with “Rooi gevaar” and “swart gevaar” and “geel gevaar” and ignore their problem of paying their ordinary accounts at the end of the month. Sir, we on this side of the House will continue to deal with these problems. We will continue to fight and we will continue to refuse to be diverted by red herrings and by the lack of concern of the people who have been elected to power, ostensibly to look after the electorate but who, when they come here, show no concern at all for the way the people have to suffer. One can give example after example of the problems which people have to face. The hon. the Minister of the Interior referred to it when he mentioned the rising number of insolvencies, but he blamed it on living too high. Sir, that is not the reason. People do not get into debt because they want to. People do not fail to pay for things and get sued and have Judgments taken against them because they like it; they do not pay their debts because they cannot afford to maintain the standard of living to which they are entitled. We on this side of the House do not believe that South Africans on the whole are living too high. We believe that we must raise the standards of the non-Whites and that we must close the gap, but as we do that, so the standard of living of the White South Africans can rise as well, and we reject completely the philosophy of living too high and we reject the philosophy of the hon. the Minister of the Interior that people should not be entitled to wage increases because they do not justify those increases. We believe in a better South Africa, a better and a higher standard of living and respect for the problems of ordinary people.

I listened with amazement to the hon. member for Durban Point. He carried on here about the black peril and the yellow peril, and while I was listening to him I thought of the fat peril before me. The hon. member made a tremendous fuss about the price increases taking place under this National Government. One thing I am glad about, and that is that at least the price increase does not nearly equal the hon. member’s increase in weight since the National Party took over power. The hon. member made a great fuss here about pensions. The hon. member said he was no economist and that he did not understand much about figures either; he therefore does things by simple arithmetic. It is very clear to me that he does things by very simple arithmetic, because you see, Sir, the problem with those hon. members is that they take a figure, and because they are not good at figures they wrench it out of context and try to establish a false truth; they try to give the voters a wrong impression. That hon. member made another mistake today. The speech he should have made at Brakpan tomorrow night he made here today. Sir, when they were in power the pensioners drew R12 per month.

R10.

Yes, let us make it R10. Under this Government the figure is R38. Now the hon. member for Durban Point says that because the rand is now worth 45 cents, in comparison with what it was worth in 1948, When the United Party was in power, the present day pensioner receives less in terms of the value of money in 1948.

I am not the one who said that; it was the Minister.

I claim they get more. If the rand’s present day value is 45 per cent of its value in 1948, and one takes 45 per cent of R38, it means that in real terms the pensioner is today receiving R17,10 as against the R10 he received under United Party rule. In other words, under National Party rule the pensioner receives virtually double the amount he received under United Party rule. The United Party gave him R10, and expressed in terms of the monetary value of that time he gets R17,10 today. I therefore say that that hon. member is guilty of a blatant untruth when he states that in this House with a view to the Brakpan by-election.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “blatant untruth”.

I withdraw them and say it is an untruth. The hon. member tried to make us believe here that R17,10 is less than R10. Therefore I agree Wholeheartedly with the hon. member that he is definitely not any good at figures.

But the hon. member for Parktown spoke here of a “grand design for prosperity” and he, like the hon. member for Durban Point, said what a difficult time the man in the street is now having. They make a great fuss about how the cost of living has increased under National rule, and the hon. member mentioned here a long list of prices that had increased, but unfortunately he just forgot to make his point.

The prices make their own point.

I should like to quote from the Sunday Times of February 1948, when the United Party was still in power. As a result of a survey they conducted, the Sunday Times stated—

Then it continues by stating—

It then goes further. I should subsequently like to quote from an article in the Sunday Express: “Rand families on poverty line. Low income group beaten in a desperate cost of living battle”.

What date is that?

It was long after the war. The Sunday Express goes further. I can tell hon. members that the date was February, 1948. I quote—

And that was United Party rule: I quote further—

That is what the Sunday Express said.

I now want to say something about the worker during United Party rule. In that connection I quote again—

That is the prosperity our people had in 1948 under United Party rule. And then the hon. member for Durban Point wants to come and make a great fuss here, as if things had gone so well for the people during those days when they were ruling the country.

Tell us what happened in the days of the rinderpest.

Mr. Speaker, I should not like to repeat the history of the hon. member for Durban Point now. These days there is quite a bit of talk about the question of communism. This party repeatedly levels at us the accusation that we accuse them of allegedly aiding the communists. I should like to read to those hon. members what Mr. Marais Steyn said in November, 1947. This is an article he wrote in the official newsletter of the United Party when he was General Secretary of that party. In November, 1947. Mr. Marais Steyn wrote as follows in this official circular—

These are now the communists—

We have reached the paradoxical position in South Africa that every movement seeking to destroy democratic practice is claiming the protection of democracy so that it can carry on its subversive acts.

We shall remember that accusation. We shall possibly come back to that at a later stage.

I now want to return to the question of the economy in general. The Opposition speakers voiced a lament here, particularly the hon. members for Parktown and Durban Point, who compel one to say that Jeremiah was a reckless opportunist and optimist. These people are now trying to create a psychosis about how bad the position in South Africa is and how we are supposedly struggling as a result of the policy of this Government. But these hon. members neglect to state the position in other countries of the world. I want to quote from a source that will please hon. members on that side of the House very much.

But our people do not live in that period of time. They live in …

I quote—

What country is that?

In general. I shall inform the hon. member of that a little later. I go further—

Then we go a little further and look at Europe.

Which newspaper is that?

The hon. member need not be so inquisitive; let him simply listen. I quote further—

We can even go a little further. I just want to mention to hon. members what they say about the United States—

We can go further and look at Japan—

Just as we saw on that side of the House. Then we can see what it looks like in a country such as Canada—

We see that everywhere the position is worse. I quote further—

How are things in Hawaii?

I can go further and paint more dark pictures for hon. members of the conditions prevailing in the world’s economy. The person writing these things …

What about the Scandinavian countries?

Oh, if the hon. member could just contain his curiosity! The person who wrote this article is now the crown prince amongst the economists on that side of the House, the person they so fondly quote, i.e. Mr. Jan S. Marais. What is going on at present is that the United Party, and particularly the hon. member for Durban Point, who was unsuccessful today, is talking the economy to death. They are letting people believe that the cost of living is increasing more rapidly than their incomes and so creating such a spirit of pessimism as far as the economy is concerned in order to scare industrialists and investors. They hope for an economic recession, as the hon. member for Parktown called it. I regard this as flagrant irresponsibility in this House, coming as it does from a man occupying his position in the Opposition. I think that if he speaks about such matters he is being disloyal to his country and to the economy of his country. I want to go further. There is an hon. member on that side of the House—he is unfortunately not present at the moment—who also made a very great fuss about economic conditions and made claims that he could not substantiate in this House. He is telling the people how they are supposedly struggling. The person is the hon. member for Von Brandis. I just want to quote the hon. member for Von Brandis’ irresponsible utterances. He said—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Von Brandis made the allegation here that with the same incomes people live better in Europe, particularly in Italy, Germany and France, than here in South Africa, and therefore we allegedly cannot get immigrants.

Immigrants say that; he does not.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would only close his mouth and open his ears. The hon. member for Von Brandis said—

He does not say so.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, let that hon. member experience a moment of lucidity. He does not even understand what I read here. The hon. member said he agrees with those people. He makes an allegation and says: “That is why they are going home and that is what this Government’s economic policy is doing to immigration.” In other words, he says they are correct on that point.

Let us look at what the position is in the various countries of the world and at how their standard of living compares with that in South Africa. There are many norms one could measure it against. But when we quote figures here or, to use the hon. member for Von Brandis’ words, we quote “carefully selected statistics”, hon. members opposite say that we are trying to substantiate untruths, as the hon. member for Von Brandis puts it. The hon. member tried to make us believe how cheap life in these other countries is. I have here a survey carried out by a source that I do not believe those hon. members will doubt, i.e. the London newspaper, the Financial Times of 13th December of last year. That is just the other day. The Financial Times carried out a survey in various large cities of the world and expressed the value of certain items in terms of American dollars. According to the survey a basket of food, consisting of meat, etc., costs $18-47 in Johannesburg. The hon. member for Von Brandis said that with the same amount of money one could live better in Europe than in South Africa. That same basket of food costs 26 dollars in Düsseldorf, Germany, as against 18 dollars in Johannesburg. In Rome it costs 28 dollars and it costs 25 dollars in Paris. Those are the countries where, as the hon. member for Von Brandis claims, one can live better than here in South Africa with the same amount of money. Let us look at the other items according to which one’s standard of living can be determined. Let us take, for example, men’s clothes, which the hon. member for Durban Point, who is not in the House at present, made such a fuss about. Clothes, for example a suit of clothes, costs 102 American dollars in Johannesburg. In Rome, the place where one can supposedly live cheaper, a suit of clothes costs 135 dollars. In Düsseldorf in Germany it costs 164 dollars and in Paris one pays 183 dollars for those same clothes. There are still other factors one can compare. Take women’s clothes for example. In Johannesburg a certain item of ladies’ clothing costs 39 dollars, in Düsseldorf it costs 60 dollars, in Rome 83 dollars and in Paris 85 dollars. Hon. members on that side of the House claim that the standard of living in South Africa is on the decline. Let us look at what it will cost if four persons go out of an evening. In Johannesburg it costs 76 American dollars.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

To judge from the reaction of the Opposition when I gave notice of this motion, I am afraid that we on this side of the House are not going to get a very positive contribution or constructive criticism this afternoon. It occurred to me that when this House expresses its appreciation of the Government’s agricultural policy, of what it has accomplished, and of the objects and activities of the various Government Departments dealing with agriculture, it would serve a useful purpose to furnish an outline of what is being done and what has been achieved with the large amounts of money which are appropriated annually in this House in the interests of agriculture. Because Government spending is a topical point of discussion in the present economic situation, financial assistance to the agricultural industry is often regarded critically by those in other sectors. In truth this is nothing strange. Because of the scanty news value which agriculture has we find on the one hand that the image people have of practising farmers is that such farmers are either potato kings, wheat kings, apple kings, or something of that nature, that the farmer sits on his porch drinking coffee, that his pretty wife is busying herself inside arranging flowers which she picked herself in her beautiful garden, and that she follows this up by bathing in a gilded bath; or on the other hand the image is one of decrepitude and backwardness, of a man standing next to a dam with cracks in its base, and with skeletons of animals lying strewn around. These distorted images which some people have, that the farmer is either a plodder or a wastrel who comes to the Government with empty hands in times of emergency to beg for alms, does neither the agriculture nor the country as a whole any good.

With the introduction of this motion I thought I would sketch a more balanced image for people of the farmer and of the importance of the agricultural industry in the country. That there should be a sound relationship between farmer and city-dweller I probably need not emphasize here. Those good relationships do not exist in all the countries of the world. We are rather fortunate in that respect. In the interests of South Africa it is quite imperative that those good relationships should exist. In fact, it is important for any country in the world that its agricultural sector, as purveyor of the basic and indispensible means of subsistence, should flourish. Consequently it is the duty of the State to ensure that that delicate balance between the various sectors is not disturbed. That is why I should like to emphasize the mutual dependence of the agricultural industry and commerce and industry, of the farmer and the consumer, and of the agricultural sectors and all the other sectors which comprise the South African national economy.

Land is indispensible to the farmer as a production factor. The land which is owned by the farmer in South Africa today does not belong only to the present generation. The farmer acts only as a guardian, as it were, to maintain and to preserve for generations still to come the most important asset of the fatherland, i.e. the land. This Government is attempting to bring home this point of view to the entire population, to cultivate a love for the land and to inculcate loyalty to the South African soil. I want to allege today that these attempts—and now I am thinking in particular of the land service movement—of the Government are succeeding and I should like to express the appreciation of this House for that.

Under South African circumstances the protection of the soil is an ambitious and a great task, too great for the farmer to tackle on his own. The gradual progress which we have made is now beginning to assume spectacular proportions, and we are grateful for that. When calamitous droughts and floods hamper progress and make relief measures necessary, the entire population has in the past contributed willingly, and there have never been any objections, even when it came from taxation. We appreciate this and would like to convey our gratitude to the non-farming sectors of our population. Emergency aid and normal State aid to agriculture is essential to maintain this industry and to protect and expand it. Such assistance is justified on the grounds that the agriculture is also a primary and a key industry. Food and clothing is derived primarily from the soil and in the national economy primary needs must receive top priority. That is why we have appreciation for Government attempts to support the various sectors where this showed itself to be necessary.

I should like to mention a few examples in this connection. If it becomes necessary to bring the products of the farmer to the market at a reasonable price for the consumer, this Government has never hesitated to introduce low tariffs for the transportation of those products on the Railways. If the farmer’s production costs become too high, this Government has never hesitated to introduce a subsidy to make fertilizer, for example, available to him more cheaply. When bread and butter became too expensive for the consumer, this Government has never hesitated to subsidize these primary means of subsistence in order to make it cheaper for the consumer. Through its policy of subsidization the Government has now succeeded in preserving the essential balance between the farmer and the consumer. This we appreciate, not only in principle, but also for the way in which it was carried out.

The agricultural industry in South Africa is relatively more important to the national economy than is the case in other countries. The principal reason for this is that South Africa, measured against the major countries of the world, is relatively poor in agricultural potential. As far as our surface area is concerned, we have 122 million hectares, of which only approximately 12 million hectare are suitable for cultivation. That is only 10 per cent, and if we compare it to a country such as America, one cannot help feeling a little envious, for America holds approximately 40 per cent of its agricultural land in reserve. As to climate, South Africa falls outside the high rainfall belts of the world, and the agricultural industry is of course subjected to inadequate and unpredictable rainfall. Periodic and calamitous droughts form a natural part of the farmer’s lot in South Africa.

Attendant upon this the limited water resources are an only too well-known factor, which retards growth even outside the agricultural sector. From the nature of our climate we must accept that periodic problems with surpluses and shortages will and must occur. It is the task of the government of the day to cope with these problems, and to do so in a way which will serve the best interests of South Africa. I think that even the Opposition would agree with me that the National Party Ministers have in the past accomplished this task in a very excellent way; to such an extent that there is nothing to which they can refer back today. Because farming in South Africa is practised under strenuous natural circumstances it has from one generation to another produced human material that would have been a credit to any country. We can be proud of our farming population and look back with pride, for the farmers of South Africa have never let the country down.

The same does not apply to the Government.

Well, they did let the Opposition down a little. What is more, young men and women have emerged from this industry who rendered meritorious services to other sectors of the national economy. To mention only one example, and this is to come a little closer, with the exception of Dr. Verwoerd all our premiers since Union in 1910 up to the present day have all been young men who grew up on a farm; what is even more interesting, is that the National Party premiers had so much confidence in the farming M.P.s that not one M.P. who was made a Minister was not a farmer. I am discussing agriculture now. They were made Ministers on the basis of the knowledge they had, in their own right, of agriculture. This is something to appreciate, because if I think back to about 23 to 24 years ago, there was an advocate Minister of Agriculture, Adv. J. G. N. Strauss.

Old Koos “Promise”.

Yes, he was a man of promises. When I think of what happened here yesterday, I feel that the hon. member for Musgrave, Mr. Hourquebie, might be an aspirant Minister of Agriculture in future. He should just hold on for a while. His chances are not too bad.

While I am on the subject of the Cabinet, I want to point out that this Government considers the agricultural industry to be very important. The Government has expanded its services to agriculture to such an extent that this comprises five departments today. Let me mention them: Agricultural Technical Services, Agricultural Economy and Marketing, Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, Water Affairs and Forestry. At the head of these departments stand no less than two full-fledged Ministers and one Deputy Minister. I can well remember how the gentlemen on the other side objected and said that two Ministers of Agriculture were too many. The farmers of South Africa perceive this consideration shown to them and appreciate it. They are particularly pleased with the present Ministers we have. At this juncture I should like to break a lance, or pay tribute. Do hon. members realize that our present Minister of Agriculture, Minister Uys, has at present been occupying this post for 14 years now? If we cast our minds back a little and consider the National Party Government over the years, we will recall that the former Minister of Agriculture, Minister S. P. le Roux, served this country in that capacity for 10 years. If we go back even further we also think of General Kemp who was Minister for 11 years. Then the other side of the House could probably claim a small share. I definitely think that the present Government of this country looks after the interests of the farmer and that its deeds speak to us from the past as well.

Under the guidance of the present Minister of Agriculture the various departments have developed to such an extent that the services of the departments such as research, information, training, marketing, financing and administration, and the laws are so unrecognizable to those who were in power in or prior to 1948 that they could never have dreamed of anything like this. What is more, a small country like South Africa can boast of services which compare favourably with those in major agricultural countries like France. Just think, Sir, this country of ours has five faculties of agriculture at four universities. Then I am not even including the Department of Forestry at Stellenbosch and the various faculties of water affairs, which also, in part, serve agriculture.

To indicate to members the progress made in this sphere, I can by way of summary present this picture: In 1950 there were only two faculties of agriculture, and in 1971 there were five. The number of agricultural colleges remained almost constant. In 1955 there were five agricultural colleges; in the meantime another one has been established and we now have six, but these agricultural colleges have almost doubled in size. The number of agricultural research stations in 1958 was 16. This is not even so far back that those hon. members can accept responsibility for it. Today there are 21 of them. In 1958 there were 21 experimental farms, and now there are 37. Since 1947 these facilities have more than doubled. The farmers of this country appreciate those facilities, and now I want to put this question: Will we, together with the Opposition, fail to testify to what has been done?

Sir, time does not allow me to say much more; I just want to mention the tremendous progress in respect of institutes. No fewer than 11 specialized institutes have in the meantime been established, and they are today rendering valuable services. In addition I just want to point out the tremendous progress which has been made in the field of water affairs. If we ascribe to the United Party everything which has been done in this sphere from the time of Jan van Riebeeck up to 1952 then this Government has during the past two decades still done more than was done during that period of 300 years. What is more, 80 per cent of this water is being utilized by agriculture.

Because my time is very limited, I just want to refer briefly to a few other matters. Those who support me in this motion will elaborate further on these matters. What have the farmers obtained as a result of this development? This is important, because everything which happened in agriculture and in the department, ultimately revolves around production, and what benefit the farmer derives from that. In 1970 approximately 90 000 farmers in the Republic had a total capital investment of R6 690 million. They employed 1,6 million employees and they contributed R1 316 million to the gross domestic product. In 1970 they exported goods to the value of R431 million. This was truly an achievement, because it was almost a third of our total exports. I could also mention in passing the importance of the farmers as consumers. It amounts to millions of rand. Let us compare the gross value of agricultural production to what it was previously. In 1950 it was R235 million, and in 1971 R1 150 million. This is truly an achievement; the farmers have made use of the knowledge and facilities which have been placed at their disposal. Sir, what I find very interesting is that it appears from the third report of the commission which was laid upon the Table yesterday that in 1947 a farmer was earning R1 179 per annum; in the year 1970 the average South African farmer was earning R6 108. Sir, this is truly an achievement for the farmers; I admit it, but everything revolves around the farmer and therefore this Government is throwing everything into its efforts to support the farmer.

Unfortunately I cannot refer to the prosperity which is prevailing in the country today as a result of the fine crops we have had because I must conclude, but I just want to say that the farmers of South Africa are in the first place grateful for this good year we have experienced and for the good years which lie ahead for us, and that they acknowledge the blessings of the Almighty in this regard. In the second place the farmers, both National Party and United Party, admit that this Government has stretched out its hand to the farmers in times of emergency as never before, and as no other Government has ever done before. For this we want to thank this Government. We are also grateful to the rest of the country which makes it possible for us to help the farmers. Unfortunately the hon. members on that side have disappointed the farmers and have not made their contribution in this regard. Sir, the farmer knows that he may trust this Government in future to assist him so that he may rehabilitate himself, and so that he may in future devote himself to his great task independently and honestly.

Mr. Speaker, I am really amazed …

So are we.

When this motion was introduced, we regarded it as a big joke.

Everything which concerns agriculture is a joke, as far as you are concerned.

We simply could not see how that hon. member could thank the Minister, but he came here today and actually tried to make out a case for it. We thought this motion was a subtle way of pulling the leg of the hon. the Minister, and now we see that the hon. member was really in earnest; that he really wanted to express his gratitude to the Minister.

This just goes to show how foolish you are.

Sir, to start right at the beginning, what does the motion say? It is a motion of appreciation of the Government for the manner in which they have dealt with agriculture. Just look at the wording of the motion. If hon. members on that side want to congratulate the Minister when he achieves success, one can understand it, but in this motion the hon. the Minister is being thanked. Sir, surely a person is expected to do his work well. This attitude of hon. members on that side just shows the conceit of that side; it shows in what contempt they hold the people of South Africa. According to them, a Minister should be thanked when he does his work properly, because it is such a rare occurrence. Sir, has the Minister done his work well?

Never! He should resign.

His own newspaper says that the hon. the Minister who is responsible for this department carries a burden of shame as a result of his actions in the Agliotti case. His own newspaper, Die Burger, tells him that he should make the greatest sacrifice, and Rapport simply told him straight out that he should resign. That hon. member spoke about five departments that had been established and about the amount of money that had been spent. But how are these departments being administered. I quote from the Sunday Tribune of 24th August—

However, what is peculiar about the whole matter is that when he was asked whether he did not see anything wrong in this transaction, he said: “It is common practice; it is done in the Land Bank, too. It is common practice in this department”. Then we also had the case of the Director of Lands in South-West Africa, Mr. Strauss, who simply sold a Government farm to himself for R8 000, a farm which had such a high valuation that the Trust Bank held a mortgage of R20 000 on it. And, when he was asked about it, he saw nothing wrong in what he had done. He said it had happened many times before; “it is common practice; it is general practice” in the department. This is the way in which the department is administered. But then the hon. member went further and said he was so grateful because this Government was, allegedly, looking after the soil of South Africa. How did they look after the soil? According to Dr. Ross, the former Director of Soil Conservation—the hon. members know so little about soil conservation that they will not even know who he is—400 million tons of soil is carried down to the sea every year, 100 million tons more than in 1948. [Laughter.] It amazes me that hon. members are laughing. Does the Minister also find it funny when the soil is being carried down to the sea? Twenty-five per cent of our top-soil has been destroyed, but the hon. the Minister laughs about it. Does the Minister know what this means? It means that we are losing R400 million’s worth of phosphate, R50 million’s worth of nitrogen and R300 million’s worth of calcium. And then the hon. the Minister laughs. Instead of his appointing officials and saving the soil of South Africa, he laughs. The hon. member said we should save the soil. Sir, do you know what this Government spends on soil protection, on soil conservation? Last year R5,5 million was spent out of a budget of R3 000 million.

It is not true, and you know it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

Here are the Estimates of Expenditure.

Are the officials included?

Not the officials. I mentioned what was paid out as subsidies for soil conservation. You may as well include the officials. Do you know what this means, Sir? This is only 0,18 per cent of the Budget; the hon. the Minister spent 0,18 per cent on soil conservation. That is what he thinks of the soil, of the land—0,04 per cent of our national income. That is what is being spent on soil conservation, and then that hon. member is so grateful that we spend 0,04 per cent of our national income on it. Instead of appointing people to apply soil conservation, they went and held a Festival of the Soil a few years ago. Then the children had to run down to the sea with sand in order to throw more sand into the sea. Why did they hold a festival? Did they hold a festival because 100 million additional tons of soil was going down to the sea? It should not have been a festival of the soil; it should have been a memorial service for what this Government is doing to the soil of South Africa. Let us take a look at what a director of soil conservation, Mr. J. P. van der Merwe, has to say. I do not have his precise words here now, but he said that approximately R20 per farm was being spent on soil conservation. This was not even the amount spent on liquor or tobacco, he said. That is what the hon. the Minister thinks of soil conservation, and that hon. member is so grateful for it.

Do you spend only R20 on soil conservation on your farm?

I said on an average. I spend far more, despite this Government. But I am referring to the assistance which the Government gives in this respect.

Then you must state it correctly. [Interjections.]

But I did state clearly that the director had said that this was the assistance which had been given by the Government.

But I want to come to the stock reduction scheme, because this is the best scheme, and I think that if the Government had to be thanked for anything, it is for this scheme, but the hon. member did not even mention it. That is how little he knows about soil conservation. Mr. J. P. van der Merwe said the following about this scheme (translation)—

Which principles are these?

The reduction scheme as such, and for the information of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet I just want to add that the chairman of the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union, Mr. Bey Stretton—and I am proud of the fact that he represents the Eastern Cape— was the father of this scheme, and for ten long years he had to try to get this Government to accept the scheme.

Then you say in Brakpan that we are responsible for the meat shortage.

The only thing the Minister can think about is elections. If he thinks less about politics and more about the farmers of South Africa, things will go better for the farmers.

Speak, man; don’t shout like that!

But the hon. the Minister is making such a noise that I have to speak loudly in order to be heard. How is this fine scheme being applied by the Government? How has the scheme been applied since it was devised? I have requested certain figures. I asked the Minister for the rainfall figures. He could not give them to me but I got them from the Department of Transport. I asked what the carrying capacity of various districts was. The carrying capacity of Phillipstown was fixed at 2½ morgen per sheep, or 2,14 ha per sheep, but the rainfall is 328,9 mm. But Klipplaat, at Jansenville, has a carrying capacity of 2 morgen per sheep, and its rainfall is only 235 mm. Then we come to Jansenville, which is also in the constituency of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. There the carrying capacity is 2 morgen per sheep or 1,71 ha per sheep, and its rainfall is only 266 mm. Then there is De Aar with a carrying capacity of 1 in 3 and the rainfall is 286,5 mm; Britstown, 1 in 3, and the rainfall 264,5 mm. Then there is Colesberg with 1,71 sheep per ha and a rainfall of 392,6. We have Luckhoff with 1,71 and a rainfall of 384,3. Just look at how this is being applied. We have a district such as Phillipstown which gets 103 mm more rain, or 44 per cent more than Klipplaat, but its carrying capacity has been fixed at 25 per cent lower than that of Klipplaat. How does this work? Do you know what 25 per cent means? It means 250 per 1 000. Therefore, if a farmer has 4 000 sheep, it means that he must keep 1 000 fewer sheep in Phillipstown than in Klipplaat or Jansenville.

Surely you must also consider the nature of the veld.

Oh, they also consider the veld. De Aar gets 60 mm more rain than Nelspoort; 20 mm more than Jansenville; and 51 mm more than Klipplaat. There the ratio is 1 in 3. There 500 per 1 000 fewer sheep are to be kept than at Jansenville or Klipplaat. On 4 000 sheep this means 2 000 fewer. On what basis is this established?

It depends on the nature of the soil, i.e. whether it is rocky or soft soil.

This just shows the ignorance of the hon. the Minister when he speaks about soil here. Anyone will tell him that Phillipstown is better district than Colesberg or Jansenville or Klipplaat. If only they knew something! But this is the way things are in this department.

Your committee makes the recommendation.

No, my committee does not. In reply to the question I put, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that his officials determine that.

In co-operation with the committee.

The hon. member had so little for which he could thank the Government that I really could not get anything from what he said.

What is the heart of the problem? The heart of the problem is that this motion should rather have stated that appreciation is expressed for the way in which the farmer of South Africa provided the necessary foodstuffs for the people of South Africa in spite of this Government. For what is the real position? We find that the volume of agricultural produce increased by 7 percent last year. That is a wonderful achievement! But what happened? The net profit decreased by R73 million. The harder the farmer works the poorer he becomes under this Government.

Where do you get those figures from?

Now the hon. member asks where I got these figures from. I got these figures from the report of the Secretary of Economics and Marketing. The trouble is that those hon. members do not even read their own reports.

On which page do they appear?

I shall give them to him any time he wants them. He does not even read these reports. I cannot give him every page reference. This is the actual figure. The harder the farmer of South Africa works the poorer he becomes under this Government. The debt of the farmers already amounted to R1 340 million.

What is their investment?

Now the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet asks what the investment amounts to. This amount is just over R7 500 million. That is the official figure. I know that hon. member will argue that it is only 20 per cent. However, if he had read the report of the South African Agricultural Union, he would have seen what the distribution of that debt is. Eighteen per cent of the farmers owe nothing.

Surely if you pay too much for a farm you must have more debt than the other man.

If the hon. the Minister would rather look after his own department and keep quiet, it would be far better for him. Eighteen per cent of the farmers owe nothing, but 55 per cent owe 95 per cent of all debts above R1 200 million.

Is the Government to blame for that?

Of course the Government is to blame for that. Who else is to blame then? What is the problem of the farmer of South Africa? Why has the farmer been left in this position? Why must 30 000 farmers leave the land? This is the case for one simple reason … [Interjections.] No, wait; keep quiet now. This is the case, in the first instance, because the price which the farmers get for their produce does not keep pace with the increase in the price of their requirements. That is the reason. The reason why they do not get a decent price for their produce is, in the first instance, because there is no marketing system. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into the marketing system today, but just look at the meat position. Just look at the meat prices. Every week 40 000 sheep are loaded, but they have to wait a week because there are no slaughtering facilities in the country. Moreover, one week the price is high and the next it is low, while the consumers always have to pay the higher prices. Does this Government want to tell me that they have never been able to work out a marketing system with all these crowds of officials that hon. member mentioned? Have they been able to work out a meat scheme? Surely there are 101 or 110 ways of solving this. Sitting over there is the hon. member for Newton Park who is waiting to work out this scheme for the Government. [Interjections.] Give him all these officials and the hon. member will work out a scheme.

He will have to wait for many years.

For example, meat factories and abattoirs can be erected in the rural areas. Refrigerated trucks can be used for transport from the meat factories. The cuts can be sold to chain stores, as Mr. Carous, manager of a big chain store, said the other day. He said himself that it is the middle man who makes the profit.

Who says so?

To go further into the marketing problems, in my constituency the pineapples are rotting under the trees.

Who asked for the scheme?

I shall tell the hon. member who asked for it. Certain leaders of the farmers, who were elected, as that hon. member was, for political reasons and political reasons only.

Will you say that in the rural areas?

I am saying it to you now. In my constituency the pineapples are rotting, but buy a pineapple here in the Cape; you have to pay 25 cents for one. There is no distribution; there is no method. Surely this can be worked out in this age of the computer. What about production costs? What is the main cause of farmers landing themselves in this position? It is the high rates of interest which caused this, and who was responsible for them? That Government was responsible for them. That Government is responsible for the high rail tariffs. The divisional council taxes of the Cape Farmer amount to more than his income tax today. Whose fault is that? It is the Government’s fault. As for the few farmers who can still carry on, those 16 per cent who still have something, that side of the House is making certain that when these farmers die their children will have nothing as a result of the fact that they have to buy back the land from the Government in the form of estate duty, at a price twice as high as the one their fathers paid for that land. Therefore we cannot support this motion at all, we reject it in its entirety. We do not even want to move an alternative motion, and we reject this one completely with all the contempt it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I think the less one reacts to what was said by this hon. member for King William’s Town, the better. To my mind the irresponsibility displayed by him, is proved clearly by the one statement he made here, i.e. that the leaders of the farmers of South Africa are sitting there today because they were elected for political considerations.

Not all, but some.

No, the hon. member said that the leaders of the farmers in South Africa … [Interjections.] I shall quote that hon. member in the interior, and I shall say he said that the leaders of the farmers of South Africa were elected for political considerations. I shall quote that hon. member wherever I may find myself.

However, I just want to pause briefly at a few matters that were touched upon by the hon. member, for I think the less one says about them, the better. He referred to soil conservation and to the amount of soil being washed out to sea. In a dramatic manner he quoted figures relating to the amount of soil washing out to sea.

Then he said that we should appoint officials to prevent this. Now I want to ask that hon. member whether it is the duty of the official or the Government to stop sand from washing out to sea. Is it the Government’s duty or the official’s duty, or is it mainly the farmer’s duty? Now he keeps quiet. I want to continue. When this Government introduced the new soil conservation legislation a few years ago, what did those hon. members do? When the Soil Conservation Act was introduced, which brought about general streamlining in our soil conservation, hon. members opposite said that we were interfering with the right of the individual. When the Government introduced measures in an attempt to establish units on which a person could earn a viable income, hon. members opposite said that we were interfering with the rights of the individual. Yesterday this was proved once again. Today that hon. member says that the officials and the Government are to blame for the fact that the soil is washing out to sea. I think the statement he made is an irresponsible one. It is a defamation of the character of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services such as I have never seen before. I hope the Department takes due cognizance of what the United Party thinks of it.

I shall refer to the stock reduction scheme later on. At this stage I just want to say that that hon. member ought to know that Klipplaat is a separate soil conservation district and does not fall under Jansenville.

But he said so.

What considerations obtained in the determination of carrying capacities? [Interjections.] What is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District laughing at? After all, he does not know anything about this matter. The hon. member referred to rainfall. But, surely, that is not all that counts. After all, carrying capacity is not only determined on the basis of rainfall. Surely there is also such a thing as soil coverage. Then the hon. member also knows that Jansenville consists chiefly of broken country densely overgrown with elephant’s-food, etc. Does the hon. member not know this? After all, he often drives through that area. However, the problem with that hon. member is that his power of perception is rather poor. He revealed that again this afternoon. That is why he is saying such absurd things as he did this afternoon in respect of the determination of carrying capacity. I want to suggest that the determination of carrying capacity in connection with the stock reduction scheme was done in conjunction with the soil conservation committees. If that hon. member wants to dispute this, he should go back to his own soil conservation committee and try to solve the matter there. I think the hon. member’s problem is to be found in the fact that he has too little knowledge of these matters.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support this motion, not only because it is pleasant for me to do so, but also because it is, in the first place, an instruction from my constituency …

Not from me, do you hear?

Since the hon. member is saying that, this is also an instruction from his town. As I stand here, I have with me a great many letters in which thanks are expressed to the various Departments of Agriculture and to the Ministries. I do not wish to quote these letters, for that would only take up my time.

Would you not read one of them to us so that we may hear what the people are saying?

Mr. Speaker, the time at my disposal is very limited, but I want to quote just one letter. It reads as follows (translation)—

Is that the secretary of the Farmers’ Association?

It is the secretary of the Farmers’ Association who wrote this on behalf of his association. I want to read out another letter. It reads as follows (translation)—

I am doing this on the instructions of my own constituency, but I am also doing so on the instructions of every agricultural congress held in this country. I am proud to be able to say today that on an average I attend four of these congresses every year. I want to ask that hon. member who made so much noise a moment ago how many agricultural congresses he attended last year. He is silent.

You know.

I want to say today that at every agricultural congress held over the past two or three years, there were motions of thanks to the Ministers and to the Departments of Agriculture for everything they had done. I want to add that all of this was done on the highest level of agriculture in this country, namely in the South African Agricultural Union.

In pausing to reflect on a motion such as this one, one is immediately impressed by its scope, and in the relatively short time at one’s disposal it is an impossible task to do full justice to the various departments. The services and financing with which the agricultural industry is provided, are so absolutely vast in scope and so irreproachable in quality that it is humanly impossible to go into them in depth. We can only scratch the surface slightly. I have decided to confine myself exclusively to the financing aspect of agriculture, with special reference to the role played by the State in stabilising the agricultural industry by means of direct or indirect financing, as well as the various ad hoc relief measures in times of disasters and price recessions. I want to start with the Land Bank. Once again I want to lay the charge against that party that the greatest injustice that has ever been done to this body, was done during the 1970 election campaign by those hon. members, led by the hon. member for Newton Park. This is the greatest injustice that has ever been done to an agricultural body in this country. Today I want to take up the cudgels for the Land Bank. Long-term assistance to farmers from 1966 to 1970 amounted to R276.5 million, i.e. up to the end of 1970.

Comma!

Yes, R276,5 million, including South-West Africa, at an interest rate of 6 per cent. In other words, with the present long-term interest rates, it amounts to a saving of between R10 million and R11 million per annum in interest alone. From 1966 up to the end of 1970 medium-term credit, or mortgage loans, amounted to R20 million at an interest rate of 7,5 per cent. That is an interest saving of R500 000 per annum. The short-term loans amounted to R10 million at an interest rate of 6,5 per cent. That is an interest saving of R350 000.

What is even much more important than that, is the financing of co-operative societies, with which I am going to deal now. This is an indirect form of financing which is also done for to the farmers of South Africa.

Why are the farmers decreasing so in number?

I am dealing with important matters now. That hon. member will not understand them, nor do I wish to reply to him now. I want to deal with assistance to co-operative societies. For instance, instalment loans for bulk-handling financing which are granted to cooperative societies, amount to R48 million at an interest rate of 7 per cent. Now we come to cash credit loans granted to cooperative societies for immediate needs. From 1966 up to and including 1970 a total amount of R2 483 million was granted at an interest rate of 6,5 per cent. I think that this is indeed a proud achievement. Assistance granted to boards of control in the form of advances and loans amounted to R143 million during the same period, including R10 million to the Wool Commission.

Now we come to agricultural credit. Over the past 10 years the credit provision to farmers by the Department of Agricultural Credit showed an increase of 300 per cent. At the present stage a total amount of R183 million has been invested in the agricultural industry by the Department of Agricultural Credit. Now, we must bear in mind that this department was only established in 1966, but I want to add that the former State Advances Division of the Department of Lands has now been incorporated in this department. That is R183 million, of which R125 million is long-term credit at an interest rate of 5 per cent.

I want to submit that as a result of this the South African farmer saves approximately R7½ million per annum in interest alone.

I just want to say a few words about the allocation of long-term assistance by these bodies. The public grumbles a great deal about the fact that one person obtains a loan and the other does not. The position is very simple, and the sooner this is realized by people in the agricultural industry, the better. The allocation of long-term loans, i.e. bonds, by these bodies is done purely on the basis of agricultural value and not on the basis of the current market value of such land. The sooner we in the agricultural sector in South Africa recognize this important principle, the less discord there will be. It should be realized that financing ought to be effected on the basis of agricultural value; in other words, on the basis of the production value of that land. If everybody would realize that, order would come about in respect of the financing of agriculture in South Africa.

Now I come to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. I must make haste, but there are so many things that are being done that, as I have said, it is only possible for one to scratch the surface. What form of financing is done by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing? In price stabilization they paid our R70 million in 1970-72 the estimated amount was R72,5 million. In respect of ad hoc assistance to industries the amount was R2,5 million in 1970-’71 and R8,7 million in 1971-’72. The amount in respect of drought and flood assistance was R11,1 million in 1970-’71 and R3,6 million in 1971-72. In addition there is the subsidy on production means. In respect of fertilizers alone the amount in 1970-71 was R15,6 million in subsidies, and in 1971-72 it was R20,1 million. The grand total of the amount spent by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing on the agricultural industry in South Africa was therefore R101,7 million in 1970-71 and R110 million in 1971-72.

Now I come to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The total amount paid out by them, was R5,7 million in 1970-’71, and in 1971-’72 it was R14,8 million. All of these are huge amounts. And then that hon. member still says that nothing is being done for the agricultural industry. In regard to financing I just want to read out to the hon. member an expert from what was said by Sir William Gunn in Australia. He said—

We must take care not to bring about what happened in Australia by telling stories such as those told by the hon. member this afternoon. We are killing our agricultural industry by telling such stories, and that hon. member is guilty of that sin. He ought to display more responsibility as far as this is concerned.

I should like to say a few words about the wool industry. I want to convey special thanks to the Government for what has been done for the wool industry in recent years. As far as agriculture is concerned, this industry has been the biggest earner of foreign exchange over the years. It is an industry which finds itself faced with very big problems, firstly, owing to the tremendous drought, and, secondly, owing to the recession of prices. When we pleaded with the Minister to help us with this supplementary price scheme, in which that hon. member happened to have shared amply, the Minister extended his hand to us and said that he would subsidize the scheme by 50 per cent. When prices dropped continuously and when we started getting worried about where it was all going to end, we approached the Minister again and said that we did not want to keep him in the dark. We told him that prices had dropped lower and that they were still dropping. Then we asked him whether we had to carry on with the scheme. When there were doubts in our hearts, this Minister said that we could not at that stage leave our people in the lurch. He told us to carry on and that he had sufficient confidence in the wool industry’s ability to recover. Today we are reaping the fruits of this advice, for the wool industry is in the process of recovering. We owe the Government an infinite debt of gratitude, not only for having kept the industry as such on its feet, but also for having kept large numbers of our wool farmers on their farms by means of its subsidization and assistance.

I should also like to say something about combating locusts. I am sorry that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is not in this House today. Let me tell you at once that the locust campaign in my area was a huge success. Locusts were exterminated. There may still be odd hatchings of locusts, but I believe that the measures taken in the campaign for combating locusts, were so effective that we wiped out this plague.

I am not so sure.

The hon. member for Walmer is the last person who may talk, for in his district the locusts, which constituted a tremendous threat there, were wiped out. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central found it necessary to send the Minister a telegram, in which he said that the campaign for combating locusts in the Steytlerville district was in chaos. Without having taken the trouble to inquire into what was going on there, he sent the Minister a telegram based on hearsay, and by doing so he caused the official at Grootfontein a great deal of trouble. The official telephoned me, asking me whether this was true, whether this could be true. I told him that there was no such thing. The campaign was a success. As the hatchings took place, the locusts were sprayed, and there were in fact no problems. I do not know why hon. members opposite do not take the trouble to investigate a matter thoroughly before they start expatiating on it.

I shall now deal with the stock reduction scheme. I want to suggest, and I am glad that the hon. member agrees, that the stock reduction scheme is the greatest scheme ever. But that hon. member should not make statements here which he knows he cannot substantiate. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Stretton, and I serve with him on several committees of agricultural unions; but I think today the hon. member imputed something to him which he really would not arrogate to himself, i.e. that he is the father of the stock reduction scheme. I do not think that hon. member knows what he is talking about. It may be true that he may have something to do with the veld reclamation scheme, but the stock reduction scheme is purely a scheme which originated in the Karoo. I want to tell you that this Minister of Agriculture …

Where is he?

It is not necessary for him to be in this House when I speak. He knows what I want to say. He had the courage of his convictions to take the bull by the horns and to introduce this scheme. Now I just want to know whether the hon. member for Newton Park, when he addressed a meeting of a farmers’ association at Graaff-Reinet, praised or criticized this scheme. It seems to me as though there is some confusion now: he should not shake his head, because I am going to quote him. There is not one single agricultural organization in this country which does not praise this scheme and does not say that it works one hundred per cent. I could read out scores of letters, but my time is limited. My time is limited, but the hon. member for Newton Park deemed it fit to address a meeting at Graaff-Reinet and to cast doubts in the minds of our people on this scheme. I say that he cast doubts, for he mentioned a R6 compensation for the first 600—I do not know where he got that figure from—and, in the second instance, he said that we had to keep the farmers on the land. They were not to go in for total withdrawal. What they are to do on their farms with 200 or 300 sheep, I simply do not know.

Sir, I want to conclude by saying that this country and the agriculturist of South Africa, and especially the small stock industry, are sincerely grateful to this Government, and therefore we deemed it fit to convey today—by way of a motion in public, so that the people of South Africa may hear it—our gratitude to the Government, for if it had not been for this Government, the agricultural industry in this country would have been in chaos, but instead of chaos there is order, and that we owe to a Ministry of Agriculture and departments which know their job and carry it out properly.

Mr. Speaker, we have just had 25 minutes of diatribe from the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. He came here with an awful lot of statistics. Whether it was his intention to try to confuse us with these statistics, I do not know, but I want to ask him one question: Why are there fewer farmers on the land today?

You tell me.

Does the hon. member know how many farmers there are on the land today? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister know?

88 000.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister says 88 000. I want to know out of which thumb he sucked that figure, because only this afternoon in this House we had a question answered by the hon. the Minister of Statistics, who told us that there are 83 000 White people actively engaged in farming in South Africa, according to the 1970 statistics, and they are not all farmers, Sir. How many of those people are farm managers? How many farms have got more than one White person on them today? Do not let the hon. the Deputy Minister come and tell us that there are 88 000 active farmers today. There are not 88 000. The point is that he does not know what is going on, nor does the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, particularly, in the agricultural sphere. Perhaps it is not fair to use an argument like that, but nonetheless it is true, or else the hon. the Minister of Statistics has given us the wrong figures. Those two hon. gentlemen can sort it out between themselves; one of them must be wrong, they cannot both be right.

And they talk about chaos!

Sir, I want to know who is expressing his appreciation. Those farmers who have been forced off the land? Are they expressing their appreciation in terms of this motion?

Who forced them off?

The circumstances created by this Government have forced them off the land. Are they expressing their appreciation, as we are being asked to do here this afternoon? Do the farmers of the Eastern Cape, who had the locust plague last year, express their appreciation to this Government for what they have done? Sir, if this Government had done its duty, they would have killed those locusts the first time they broke out in the north-west. They should never have got to the Eastern Cape. And then this hon. member has the cheek to come here and thank this Government. For what? For failing to do their duty the year before last. Of course they did a good job last year, but as usual it was too late, and it cost the country double what it should have cost. Sir, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said that he must support this motion. Of course he must do so. His political future is at stake, otherwise he would never have supported this motion.

The hon. member talks about the stock reduction scheme and tells us what a wonderful scheme it is, and this House is asked to express its appreciation for the scheme introduced by this Government and for the way in which it has been operated. Sir, can I participate in that scheme today?

Why not?

The hon. member does not know that the scheme has been suspended. If it is such a good scheme, why has it been suspended? May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the scheme has been suspended?

No.

I am very glad to hear it.

It will be suspended at the end of this month.

Why is it going to be suspended if it is such a good scheme? Mr. Speaker, these are the questions that we want answered before we start expressing any appreciation in this House for anything done by the Government as far as the agricultural sector is concerned. Perhaps we have got some farmers who want to say “Thank you” to the Government. I refer to the poultry farmers, who have now got production control, thanks to this side of the House who told the Minister to introduce the necessary legislation. Then there are also the housewives of South Africa who have no longer got excess water in their chickens because of regulations introduced by that hon. Minister, thanks to this side of the House who forced him into doing it. Those are the people who can express their appreciation in terms of this motion but not, I am afraid, the farmers who had to rely on the Government to do something for them.

Sir, let us have a look at the dairy industry. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister really believe that the people in the dairy industry today are prepared to express their appreciation for the manner in which this Government have dealt with their industry over the past years? Surely, Sir, somebody must have his tongue in his cheek when he expects this of the members of the dairy industry. What is the position in the dairy industry today, Sir? It has never been in such a parlous state. Let us look at the production figures. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has quoted plenty of figures; I also have plenty of figures which I could quote. Let us have a look at fresh milk production in the controlled areas. In 1968 we produced 104,2 million gallons; in 1969 it increased to 111,3 million gallons. In the few years preceding 1968 there had been increases of between 5 per cent and 7 per cent per annum. But in 1970 it dropped to 106,5 million gallons.

Is that industrial milk?

No, fresh milk in the controlled areas.

What about industrial milk?

I cannot get the industrial milk figures out of the hon. the Minister. Whenever I ask him for these figures, he has not got them. Sir, in 1971 it was only 106,6 million gallons; there was no increase at all over the year 1970.

Farmers switched to beef production.

Why did they switch to beef production? Has the hon. the Deptuy Minister asked himself that question?

Expensive labour.

Expensive labour! They switched to beef production for one reason only, and that was economics. They switched because they found it more economical for them to do so. In my own constituency we are 1 200 gallons of milk per day down the drain because of the price policy of this Government. Sir, let us have a look at butter. In 1968 we produced 116 million lbs., in 1969 122 million lbs., and in 1970, because the Minister did not increase prices to keep pace with the increased cost of production, only 104 million lbs.

It was a drought year.

Very well, we will accept that there was a drought in 1970, but what about 1971? There was no drought in 1971. In 1971 the production was 97 million lbs., below what we produced in 1965, and yet we are asked to express our appreciation to the Government. Do you think, Sir, that the dairy farmers will express their appreciation when their production has been chopped to 97 million lbs? At the same time, Sir, what have we had to expend in foreign exchange to import butter? What has happened to our butter imports? In each of the years 1968 and 1969 we imported 800 000 lbs., and in 1970 we had to import 6,1 million lbs. What did we import in the year 1971? We imported 20,9 million lbs. of butter, into this country which should be able to produce more than we can consume but, Sir, never under this Government because no farmer has sufficient confidence in them to go back into the dairy industry.

Under present circumstances.

Exactly, under present circumstances. I will come to those “present circumstances” in a moment. While we have had all this, Sir, what about the bungling that has been going on? The bungling that has been going on is costing not only the farmers money, but it is also costing the housewife money and it is costing the tax-payer money.

Sir, I want to speak to the hon. the Deputy Minister about a speech which he made in this House last Thursday, on the 17th. I have a copy of his Hansard here. It reads—

*I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister which year he was talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I object. The hon. member is misreading what I said. I most certainly did not say what he has just read out.

There it stands in Hansard. All I want to know is which year the hon. the Deputy Minister was talking about here.

But, Sir, the man is lying now. I said nothing of the kind.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir, but the hon. member must be honest. He must read what I said.

I will read it again—

Here it stands in Hansard, Sir. Will the Deputy Minister tell me which year he was talking about?

November last year.

What the Deputy Minister says here is that in November of last year there was a shortage of local butter. But the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that in November last year the local production of butter exceeded the consumption of butter by 40 per cent.

Because of yellow margarine.

It does not matter why. He admits it. Now, why did the hon. the Deputy Minister mislead this House last Thursday when he said that there was a shortage of local butter in November 1971? Why did he mislead the House? How can we express appreciation for this sort of thing? And this is the whole crux of the matter, the bungling and the mishandling there has been in the whole dairy industry; because at the time the hon. the Deputy Minister made this statement he was trying to cover up one of the grossest errors that had been perpetrated by that department. Sir, what was the position with all the importation and the production of butter? At the end of the dairy year, 30th September, 1971, we had a surplus of nearly a thousand tons of butter. That is what the Dairy Board had on hand. That was one week’s supply. That is all. But what was the production at the time? The production of butter at that time was sufficient to meet the demand for butter after the introduction of yellow margarine. The date is important. Yellow margarine was introduced in South Africa on 1st October last year, which was the first day after the closing of the dairy year, in which we had imported 20 million lbs. of butter. But in the three months after that, notwithstanding the fact that our local production of butter was 40 per cent above the local consumption of butter, 6 million kg. of butter was still imported by this Minister through the Dairy Board. Why was it necessary to import that butter? And the hon. the Deputy Minister comes here on Thursday and misleads the House with a statement like this. He goes further—

When was that decision taken? It was taken in May, and the Minister of Health announced it here. And when you talk about bungling, Sir, on the Tuesday afternoon this hon. Deputy Minister was asked a question by my colleague from East London North, whether it was the policy or whether it was intended to introduce yellow margarine. This Deputy Minister on Tuesday afternoon told us “no”, and on Wednesday night the Minister of Health announced the introduction of yellow margarine.

It is teamwork.

Yes, that is the teamwork, but we are being asked to express our appreciation for this sort of bungling. Surely the Board knew when they introduced yellow margarine that the consumption of butter was going to go down. Why still import another 6 million kg? The 6 million kg. of butter was imported after production had already exceeded the local consumption of butter. When the hon. member for Swellendam hears this sort of thing, I am sure he feels he should withdraw his motion. Surely we cannot express our appreciation for this sort of thing.

Now, what do we find is the situation today? Because we have imported 6 million kg. of butter more than we needed, incidentally at a tremendously high cost, we now have to export at a loss. Why did the Deputy Minister not give the benefit of that to the local housewife? Because of the scandal which we unearthed, thanks to the newspapers which got wind of the fact that we were exporting the butter, this hon. Deputy Minister was forced to reduce the price of butter by 12 cents per 500 grams, 24 cents per kg. That reduced the price of the butter he imported but he was still making a profit on that butter. He is still selling it above the price he paid for it when he imported it. He is still selling it at a higher price than that. But today that butter is almost unobtainable, and this has shown the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he reduces the price of butter the housewife will buy it. He is not prepared to reduce the price of local butter to the South African housewife, but he is prepared to reduce the price of South African butter to some consumer overseas. In other words he is asking the South African housewife to subsidize the housewife overseas with cheap butter. It is done at the cost of the South African housewife, and this House is now being asked to express its appreciation for this, for the fact that the South African housewife is subsidizing cheap food overseas which this Minister and this Government will not give to our own housewives and to our poor underprivileged people in this country.

Tell the whole story.

I have told the whole story. And what is it costing? Firstly, whom are we subsidizing? We do not know, because when we ask the Minister to which countries we are exporting butter, he tells us it is to Asia, and when we ask him at what price he is exporting, he says that is a trade secret.

Of course!

Why “of course”? It is public money we are dealing with here. This is not a private concern. Or is it a private concern that got a contract to export this butter? Is it a private concern? Let us have it, because if it is not a private concern, it is a Government agency and then it is public money and this House has the right to know what we are getting for that butter. Through something which the hon. the Deputy Minister let slip last week when he was talking here, I did a little bit of arithmetic and I worked out that on the consignment which has gone already, the 2½ thousand tons, we have lost R106 000. And if we are going to export 10 000 tons, as the hon. the Deputy Minister told the hon. member for Houghton in reply to a question, we are going to lose another R½ million on the exportation of butter at this rate, which is going to be paid by the taxpayer and the housewife of South Africa. It is they who pay this R½ million and it is no good the Deputy Minister being clever and doing a little arithmetic himself and saying, as he said here that if he ploughed that back to the housewife in South Africa, it would have reduced the price by 0,2 cent per kg. Of course, on the total consumption of 104 million lbs., that would have been the case, but we are not asking him to reduce the whole lot, but let the South African housewife have the benefit of the butter exported.

You think I will sit here dumb-struck (met my bek vol tande), but I will reply to you.

Let him reply, Sir, but it will be written down, the same as this has been written down. In the two or three minutes left to me I want to give a little advice to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do not want to be wholly destructive; I want to be constructive too. I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he investigate the Dairy Board, so that we can get together some time and consider ways and means of putting the dairy industry back on its feet, particularly with regard to industrial milk, other than fresh milk. This is milk and cream used primarily for the production of butter and cheese. I want to suggest to him now that although he has at odd times had people on the Dairy Board who have had the ideas necessary to put the dairy industry back on its feet in South Africa, and to promote the sale of butter, either through other members on the Dairy Board or through Ministerial or departmental action these schemes have come to nought. The best scheme of all was the introduction of smaller packs. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister has seen in other countries that smaller packs of butter are available. I am very glad to see that South African Airways are making use of them now. At least I know that I am getting butter and not yellow margarine when I fly. I believe that the production of these small packs is curtailed by the Dairy Board and I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will inquire into this. What happened to the 10 cent packs and to the other smaller packs which should have been produced for our people to buy? It has been proved overseas that this is the way to sell butter. It has been proved in our own country with cheese. When we introduced a smaller pack of cheese, the consumption of cheese went up immediately because it became more readily available to more people. Let us market this product. The trouble with these control boards is that the farmer does not have to sell his product. Let this Dairy Board do its duty and let it market the product. Let us put it in a decent wrapping, let us put it into tin foil instead of in a vegetable fibre. Let us make it attractive to the housewife. Let us put it on the shelves of the supermarkets of South Africa.

At a higher cost!

The cost increase will be infinitesimal and the housewife and other consumers of butter in this country will buy it.

And the housewife will have to pay for it.

She will pay because she is not buying a great big chunk of butter. She is buying the size that she wants and as a result of that the consumption will go up. This has been proved already.

Unfortunately my time has run out, but I say in all earnestness to the hon. gentleman that we have to consider this matter. We have to go into the whole function of the Dairy Board, because surely the function of any control board should be to make people happy. Unfortunately, under this Dairy Board today the farmers are unhappy, the housewife is unhappy and there are shortages. This Dairy Board is not performing its function. I am sorry, but as long as we have this Dairy Board and this Government, it is impossible for me to express my appreciation for the manner in which this Government has dealt with agriculture over the past years.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House naturally does not expect the Opposition to be enthusiastic about every action of the Government. The least one may rightly expect, is gratitude and appreciation, even if not for all the good things this Government has given us, then at least for the aid and assistance the Government has rendered to agriculture in times of disasters and adversity over the years. However, on that side of the House we have hon. members who regard the interests of the farmers as a joke and who call it foolish and conceited to say thank you. With such hon. members I cannot argue. As far as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is concerned, I should not like to spoil the fun of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I leave him in the capable hands of the Deputy Minister. We are not trying to give out by means of this motion that the Government is perfect or that it does not make mistakes. Of course, mistakes are made. In any undertaking, particularly in an undertaking of the magnitude and the diversity of the agricultural industry, mistakes will creep in from time to time. However, I want to tell the hon. the Opposition that we in this country should count our blessings because we have a Government which is not prepared to sacrifice the interests of the farmer on the altar of temporary and short lived advantages, but which is gradually laying foundations on which our children too will be able to continue building. The Opposition may say what they like. They may come with their story that the Government is driving the farmers from the land and that the Government is doing nothing for the farmers. I say they may keep on telling those stories, because to do so will not help them in any way. I have here in front of me the reports of the two agricultural departments, and these reports belie all those assertions of theirs and contain deadly evidence against them. These reports tell the story of why the National Party enjoys the confidence of the farmers of South Africa. They also tell the story of why the National Party represents more than 90 per cent of the agricultural constituencies. This is an achievement because the promotion of the interests of agriculture in a country such as South Africa is no easy task indeed. We know that South Africa is not a rich country agriculturally. We heard here this afternoon that approximately 88 per cent of the surface is suitable for grazing only, on which only extensive farming systems can be applied. As far as the small quantity of arable land is concerned, it is a relatively poor country according to international standards. In this country we usually have more than our normal quota of pests and plagues, droughts and floods, storms and heat and cold. There are few countries in the world where the needs and the problems of agriculture consequently vary as continually as they do here in South Africa. Therefore very high demands are usually made on any Government in South Africa as far as agriculture is concerned. But in passing judgment on the Government, we must not overlook the fact that in addition to those things the Government has had to take into account the challenge posed by science and technology and the higher standards of living brought by them over the past decade and longer, has had to exploit our natural resources, and has had to take into account the inexorable economic laws as well as inevitable world situations and trends, also in the agricultural industry. Here I have in mind, for example, inflation and the depopulation of the rural areas. At the same time the Government has had to take steps to guard against the exploitation and waste of our scanty resources, our soil and our water. But despite all these things, this Government has placed agriculture in South Africa on a sound foundation and has developed it into a force in the South African economy. It has managed to do this because it did the obvious thing, i.e. to conduct proper research into the needs and problems of agriculture. These reports to which I refer, tell the story. When one reads them, one feels happy and one gains confidence in knowing that the information and the guidance of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are based on new knowledge arising out of and becoming available from their own research. This is of great importance to me. Where certain kinds of research are applicable throughout the world, as in the case of medicine, for example, agricultural research is regionally bound and has real value only if it is carried out on one’s own soil by one’s own people and under one’s own specific climatic conditions. Let me point out, in passing, that time and again in the past when our continued existence was at stake, our own people came forward and made breakthroughs which not only strengthened our strategic position but also quite often placed us in a position of being able to make important contributions to the outside world. For example, when cattle diseases threatened to jeopardize the position of agriculture as a source of food, our scientists at Onderstepoort made breakthroughs which not only safeguarded our agricultural, industry but also gained fame for South Africa. Today we can take a look at almost every scientific discipline and we shall find the names of South African researchers who are holding their own and cause South Africa to keep abreast of a developing world. Therefore we need not have any doubt about one thing, and that is that we have the potential at our disposal and it is with appreciation that we take cognizance of the fact that the Department of Agriculture is employing this potential to the full.

Let us just take a look at what is being done. Between the years 1958 and 1971 this Government spent no less than R29 million on buildings and facilities on behalf of five university faculties of agriculture, six agricultural colleges, nearly 40 experimental stations and, not least of all, eleven research institutes which were established, each of which is engaged in specialized research under planned programmes simply and solely for the agricultural industry. I want to ask whether this is the doing of a government which wants to drive its farmers from the rural areas and which has no time for its farmers? The hon. members opposite talk term policy in season and out of season. Our policy allegedly is a short-term one. Let me point out that during the same period from 1958 to 1971 this Government spent no less than R25 million on subsidies for soil conservation works. But that is not all. In addition this Government made the farmers of South Africa a gift of R2 867 702 in terms of the veld reclamation scheme and R5 228 533 in terms of the stock reduction scheme. Is this the doing of a government which does not want the farmers on the land and which has no time for the farmers?

In order to gain a better understanding of the inestimable value of research to the farmer, the agricultural industry and the country as a whole, I can do no better than to pose the alternative by asking where the farmers of South Africa would have been if the Department of Agricultural Technical Services had not given them, through unfailing research, the hybrid mealie, which has enabled them to increase the yield of 10 bags per morgen to 20, 30 and even 40 bags per morgen? Where would the farmer have been if this department had not given him improved blight-resistant and more adaptable strains of wheat? In addition he was given virus-resistant potato strains, tobacco strains and dozens of other strains too numerous to mention. Where would the fruit farmers have been today had it not been for the fact that this department had made so many new cultivare available to them? Where would the stock farmers have been without the utilization of ureum in stock fodder in the form of licks or mixtures by means of which dry winter grazing can be utlized effectively and by means of which stock production has been increased so considerably? And add to that the achievements gained by the department in the field of breed development and breed improvement. There is, for example, the Bondsmara breed of cattle about which many hon. members on the opposite side probably know nothing. There are the Dorper sheep, the Dormer sheep and the Dohne Merino and many others too.

Sir, have you ever considered what would have happened to many agricultural undertakings had it not been for the indispensable services of the Division of Plant Pest Control with its preventive and control services? What would have happened to the citrus farmers had it not been for this department revealing the underlying causes of ring spot, virus diseases and greening disease? The biggest critics of the Government will have to admit not only that all these free services have brought the farmers and the agricultural industry inestimable advantages but also that many farmers would have been ruined without them, particularly in these times of increased costs and intensive competition.

But let us proceed. What would have happened to the stock farmer had it not been for Onderstepoort? Today there is not a single dangerous or contagious disease which has not either been wiped out or brought under control completely. Take, for example, something like nagana, the eradication of which has made thousands of square miles available for successful cattle farming in the Lowveld. Something like foot and mouth disease virtually is something of the past. The only risk still to be found is on the long borders of our country, which have been fenced by a vigilant Government and are being patrolled. Incidentally during the past year Onderstepoort issued no fewer than 95,5 million doses of 28 different vaccines. I ask again: If this Government wants to get rid of the farmers and if they do not care about the farmers, would they do such things? No, anyone with common sense will know that they will not do so.

Research is necessary and in a dynamic industry such as the agricultural industry it is an essential prerequisite for growth and development. That is why the department started conducting research 12 years ago and has developed into the biggest single research institution in the country. In regard to research there are three requirements. Firstly, research machinery must function efficiently. Secondly, research must be purposeful and to the point, and thirdly, research results must be made available to those on whose behalf it has been undertaken and who is to apply it in practice. The successes achieved by the department are mainly attributable to the very fact that that is precisely what they are doing. This department does not undertake research merely for the sake of research. Research is undertaken after a systematic investigation, in the different agro-ecological regions, of all the factors influencing production. Moreover, this is done in co-operation with the farmers through their agricultural organizations. On the basis of information obtained in this way and also on the basis of the advice of expert advice committees established for this purpose, the most important research needs are determined and research programmes are worked out for every one of the research institutes which may then get on with the job. As regards the making available of research results, an essential method is, of course, through scientific publications. In this field, too, the department has done very well. Both as regards the quality and quantity of its scientific publications, these are a worthy reflection of the great and deserving work which is being done. I have here in front of me the Yearbook for Agricultural Research for 1971, with informative progress and final reports of 2 102 registered research projects dealt with during the year under review. To this may be added approximately 440 research publications which appeared in scientific publications, which are internationally recognized, as well as numerous contributions to foreign publications of papers read at international conferences and symposiums.

In conclusion I want to point out that all of this would not have been of much avail had one been unable to take those research results to the farmer in a way which he would understand and in a way which would enable him to apply them. That is why the department pays particular attention to training and information, a service which has two important aspects in particular. The first is the grounding of the extension officer himself and the second is the maintenance of good human relations. In order to meet these requirements, the Department introduced a system of in-service training as well as a post-graduate university course in extension methodics. Here I want to put in a good word for the officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I know of few other officials who move in farming circles with so much dedication, tact and patience—I am speaking of experience, because I have had to deal with them very often—and who discuss the problems of the farmers with them and give them advice and guidance. I want to express my appreciation towards them. But for the further dissemination of information we have the well-known periodical Farming in South Africa, and the press, the radio, and film and slide shows are all used extensively for this purpose, and in addition we still have the departmental publications, and in the latest year under review no fewer than 144 000 copies of six special articles from Farming in South Africa were distributed, 143 000 agricultural bulletins and 87 500 copies of Agricultural News, not even to mention the hundreds of farmer’s days and visits to farms and personal interviews with farmers.

For the farmer there are two things of importance. Firstly, that they will have the Government as an ally and, secondly, that their industry will develop basically sound. In other words, they want the assurance that they will not stand alone in the uneven battle against the elements of nature. They also want the assurance that their industry will be administered in such a way that their children will be able to continue farming and still be able to enjoy the same freedom and independence they do. As I myself am a farmer and the representative of an agricultural constituency, I am glad for this opportunity to convey my own gratitude and appreciation, but also the gratitude and appreciation of my constituents who are farmers, to the hon. the Ministers of Agriculture and this Government, as well as the officials of Agricultural Technical Services for what they are doing for the promotion of agriculture in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we had a singular display here, with the hon. member for Swellendam moving this motion. The actual aim of this motion is to express appreciation to the Government, and when this is done one would expect the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, hon. Senator Uys, to have sat here and listened to the debate in order to reply to the motion of thanks prepared for him by the hon. member for Swellendam. What is more, one would have expected the hon. the Deputy Minister, as one does when one is thanked on some occasion or other, to immediately have taken the opportunity to express his thanks for that appreciation accorded him. But the hon. the Deputy Minister did not take the opportunity, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture scorns the hand of gratitude of the hon. member for Swellendam and does not even take the trouble to be here to listen to this debate.

You know very well he was here.

The hon. member for Wynberg mentioned the achievements of the various departments of agriculture and asked where the farmers would have been were it not for the wonderful research work done by these departments.

Are you belittling it?

Or course I appreciate the research these gentlemen and the Departments are doing, but what I find strange is that the hon. member for Wynberg makes no mention of the fact that all this research that was done—the wonderful hybrid seed we have at our disposal, the new cultivars that were grown, etc.—cost South Africa money. It did mean increased production, but what the hon. member suppresses is that in spite of this increased production in South Africa the South African farmer’s profit margin is still dropping. Sir, all these achievements of the Department of Agriculture are altogether contradicted by the attitude of that side of the House, i.e. that today the South African farmer must develop on a horizontal level and must have more land to be able to make a profit and a decent living. This side of the House has always advanced the argument that the South African farmer’s production costs have increased to such an extent, and his profit margins dropped to such a degree, that most farmers today find it impossible to maintain the standard of living of a decent human being. The hon. gentleman need not listen to me; let him listen to the chairman of the South African Agricultural Union, who said in Windhoek on 22nd October of last year (translation)—

That is true, but not for all farmers.

Then Mr. Frans van Wyk says—

Then, Sir, he makes this very important point

He farms at a loss.

Of course he farms at a loss. But let us hear what was said by Mr. Harry Walker in October last year, four or five months ago, at the Nationalist Party congress in Natal—

They were not even spending enough time on agricultural matters at their congresses, Sir. He went on to say—

He then put this important question to congress—

Sir, those are the questions that side’s own people are putting to them, and then the hon. member for Swellendam expects us on this side to join him in expressing our gratitude to the Government on behalf of the farmers of South Africa. Sir, what is the position? What did the hon. member for Swellendam actually want to say today? He actually wanted to thank the Government for the ad hoc assistance they have given to the South African farmer over, say, the past 10 years. Sir, I do not find it strange that the hon. member wants to single out the ad hoc assistance given to the South African farmer by the Government, for the simple reason that this Government has an ad hoc assistance mentality as far as the agricultural industry in South Africa is concerned. Those hon. gentlemen have never had a great vision in respect of agriculture in this country. To them a large number of farmers in this country have always meant only problems. They think that if one decreases the number of farmers in South Africa, one would also reduce the agricultural problems in this country. But, Sir, to concede that the hon. member for Swellendam is correct to a small degree, let us look at the ad hoc assistance this Government has given the farmers over the past 10-12 years. Let us see what happened in times of drought and in times of difficult climatic conditions. Sir, you will still remember the tremendous drought we had in large parts of the Cape in 1970, when many farmers struggled to have their livestock transported; when many farmers struggled with the transport of fodder for those animals. It was only at the last moment that this Government decided to call in the Army to hasten to the assistance of those farmers, after we on this side of the House asked them why they were not prepared to call in the Army to help those people. After the South African stock farmer had suffered great losses and inconvenience from droughts, the hon. the Minister of Transport said at the last moment that he was no longer able to handle the situation, and then the Minister of Defence and his department had to be called in.

There were more sheep after the drought than prior to it.

Six, let us look at the example the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet mentioned, i.e. the locust plague. No plague in the past 10 years has caught the South African farmer and the Government of this country more unawares than specifically this plague. Instead of making toxic agents available quickly to individual farmers under the guidance of local farmers’ associations, they waited until more and more swarms hatched out in South Africa. Instead of this, they waited for the local locust officers and a small bunch of people to see if they could get the situation under control. They tried to take action on a nation-wide scale instead of calling in farmers’ associations and making toxic agents available to individual farmers for the combating of that plague. What happened was that in most cases people could not obtain toxic agents in time, and frequently the supplies they obtained were insufficient. But let us look at another example. What happened last year when that tremendous storm ravaged the Gamtoos Valley and the Sundays River Valley, and when there were tremendous floods in that area. Within a week or two the hon. the Deputy Minister and his Minister arrived there in helicopters to see what things looked like for the farmers. When the farmers asked them what kind of help the Government was going to give them, they replied that they could not yet say what kind of assistance would be supplied; that they would first have to institute investigations, and do you know, Sir, what the hon. the Deputy Minister said? He said that what ought to be done is that this type of storm ought to be averted. In other words, the hon. the Deputy Minister was thinking more in terms of a long-term policy according to which more dams would be built so that those storm waters could be averted, while there were dozens of farmers at that stage who had 10 to 12 ft. of silt over their 10-15-30 morgen plots of irrigable land.

Those people wanted to know from the Government what form of immediate assistance the Government was going to grant them, because if one has so many morgen under orange trees, say, and that land is silted over and everything destroyed, then that part must immediately be placed under production. But it takes this Government three months before they can tell those people what form of assistance they can obtain. Sir, I am not complaining about the form of assistance granted. What I am complaining about is the ad hoc assistance they are prepared to give. That is normally given at such a stage that, when the Government is handling them in that fashion, the farmers have doubts in their hearts and no courage for the future.

Let us take a brief look at the livestock fodder subsidy scheme. Last year the Government decided that in many areas the livestock fodder subsidy scheme would be abolished because, they said, there is now the livestock withdrawal scheme and large portions of the country have had rain. But the hon. member forgets that there were large portions of the North Western Cape that had not yet had rain at that stage. But summarily it was decided that the livestock fodder subsidy of those people would be cancelled. But then they say they are proud of the ad hoc assistance the Government gives the farmers of South Africa.

Let us look at the livestock withdrawal scheme. Last year in December it was announced that any farmer that wanted to go in for the full withdrawal scheme would no longer be allowed to do so. I have no objection to that, but it is said that any farmer that still wants to participate in the livestock withdrawal scheme will be given time up to the end of March this year to submit an application. But then, a week ago, the stock-farmer of South Africa was told: You now no longer have until the end of March to make your application; your application must be in before the end of this month.

That is easy to understand.

The hon. member says it is easy, but why was it not possible for them to tell those farmers early that their applications had to be in by the end of February? I want to know what the reason is for this unapproachable attitude towards the South African farmer, and I want to describe this decision as a childish one. Why was there no timely notification of the fact that the closing date for applications would be the end of February? One could mention another example. One could look at the Government’s decision about the manufacturing of yellow margarine. They are supposedly the people who know the South African farmers circumstances so well. Last year when the Minister came along with that legislation, was he prepared to consult the dairy farmer of South Africa? No, what does Mr. Albert Basson, chairman of the Dairy Board, say according to the Landbouweekblad? (translation)—

He also described the claim by the Minister of Health, Dr. De Wet, that butter is detrimental to health, as unscientific, he said the dairy industry took strong exception to the fact that it was not consulted in this. That was the question of the manufacturing of margarine. If the hon. gentleman and his department are in such close touch with the South African farmer, this type of thing would surely not be happening. If they are helping the South African farmer, how is it that Mr. André du Toit, chairman of the K.W.V., had to say as recently as 3rd August of last year that the Minister had hit the wine-farmers hard? Then they pretend they are the friends of the South African farmers, but the farming leaders themselves say that this Government and the Minister are hitting them hard.

What about the natural wines?

Now the hon. member for Swellendam comes along and tells us we must be prepared to thank the Government for those hard blows they are dishing out to the South African farmers. This is no motion of thanks and no motion of appreciation to the Government, but a motion of irony. No Government in South Africa has yet succeeded in bringing more farmers to their knees than this very Government we have had in South Africa for the past 24 years. Let us look at another ad hoc arrangement of this Government.

There is the so-called question of meat marketing. Last year we conducted a tremendously fierce debate in this House about meat marketing. At the time the hon. the Minister told us he had his own scheme in mind, a cheaper and an easier scheme for the stock-farmer. We then told the hon. the Minister that he must be prepared to give a portion of the permits, which are granted, to the South African farmers. At that stage the South African farmers, particularly the Transvaal farmers, felt that they should not be solely dependent on the favour of their meat marketing agents. We then asked the hon. the Minister to do something about the matter. We asked him to give a certain percentage of those permits to the farmers. In August it was decided to do just that. Shortly afterwards, however, the whole scheme was abolished. What is the hon. the Minister’s position? He denies altogether having had anything to do with it. Last year, before his party congress at Goudini, he denied having had anything to do with that.

As with Agliotti.

Yes, as with Agliotti. Here I have the August 1971 issue of Farming in South Africa. It states—

Do they acknowledge that this was given with their approval? But when he was tackled by the South African farmers, what does he tell them? According to the Farmers Weekly he said, when holding the meeting in Pretoria—

I also want to refer to what was said about that in the Agricultural New of 1st October. Hon. members must now remember that the Minister said he had nothing to do with that and that he had heard about it for the first time over the radio

The inception and withdrawal are two different matters.

Wait now. The hon. member must listen.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member.

No. The report in the Agricultural News of 1st October reads (translation)—

One moment we ask him to accept his responsibility, and the next moment he denies having had any responsibility in this respect. I now ask on behalf of the stock-farmers of South Africa whether we can have any appreciation for such a Minister, a Minister who is evading his responsibility in such a scandalous manner? This is not in the interests of this country’s agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to apologize to the Deputy Speaker for having lost my temper while the hon. member for Piertermaritzburg-District, who is not present in the House now, was speaking. The House must understand one thing, and this is that I do not regard agriculture as a political matter. I came to this debate this afternoon with the honest feeling that the hon. member for Swellendam was sincere in his proposal in which the Government was thanked for what has been done for agriculture and in which the hope was expressed that the Opposition would make positive contributions, because there are faults in agriculture; there are bottle-necks. I have never managed agriculture with an ulterior politicial motive. When a farmer approaches me and asks for any form of help, I have never wondered whether he is a member of the National Party or of the United Party I regard the agricultural industry as something unpredictable. But if matters are put in a debate as they were put here this afternoon, when something I said last Thursday was presented in a wrong light, hon. members who know my background and understand that I do not want to make a cheap political football of this matter, will know why I lost my temper. Just like last Thursday, I am speaking from my heart, as a farmer and as nothing but a farmer. For that reason hon. members opposite will not be able to understand me, but I think I was unreasonable towards the Deputy Speaker by behaving as I did.

I want to reply to the hon. members individually. The hon. member for King William’s Town said that this motion was probably a joke. How does the hon. member think we in the ministry and the officials who have made it their life task to make a success of agriculture in South Africa, feel if this motion, out of which the hon. member for Swellendam did not for one moment try to make political capital, is referred to as a joke? Surely everybody has benefited from the financial aid offered by the Government. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet mentioned here the positive steps taken by the Government, and the hon. member for Winburg pointed out in a striking way what had been done by the Government. But everything this Government does, is criticized. As far as the officials of the Department of Agriculture are concerned—forget about the ministry—I want to say to hon. members that if you have a bad labourer on your farm and you praise him for just a moment one day in a month, you will give a little encouragement. If, however, you continually insult him, humiliate him and treat him harshly, he becomes despondent after a while. An Opposition which is prepared to say occasionally that the officials have done at least one good thing, is a good Opposition, but we have been criticized and humiliated here all afternoon. I began to wonder whether it would be worth while trying to explain something to this crowd of United Party members. But I have no choice: I am paid to do the job and must reply.

After all this time, the hon. member for King William’s Town referred again this afternoon to the farm which Strauss allocated to himself in South-West Africa. I am referring to the farm Mahlzeit. As a result of the quick action of the department and the Minister, he was forced to give the farm back. There is nothing wrong. The matter was finalized last year. The hon. member made the statement that potash to the value of R300 million was being washed away every year. What a ridiculous statement!

Calcium.

Calcium to the value of R300 million is being washed away annually! What is the difference between the two?

He does not know.

Furthermore, the hon. member said that the chairman of his farming group, the hon. member for Newton Park, would work out the meat scheme for us. Those were his words. He asked me on Thursday whether I was satisfied with our meat scheme. I told him candidly that I was not. Why should I lie? There are various reasons why I am dissatisfied with it. But it is easy to condemn and then leave the matter hanging in the air. When is that hon. member going to give us his meat scheme?

I come now to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. He has repeatedly said that the number of farmers has decreased. Hon. members shouted at me that I was wrong when I said that there were 88 000 farmers, and said that there were in reality only 83 000. Let it be what it may; but let me ask the hon. member whether the United Party, if it were to come into power, would put a stop to the decrease in the number of farmers.

Yes.

Would the United Party still have 83 000 fanners 24 years after it had come into power?

No, more than 83 000.

My goodness! Try to argue with such people! Twenty-three percent of South Africa’s population; in America it is 7 per cent. The hon. member wants to increase that percentage!

Does the hon. the Minister in fact know that they are changing that percentage?

Hon. members should understand that it is the aim of the Ministry of Agriculture to keep as many people in the rural areas as is practicable. We want to give a man the right to exist. The hon. member asked me what an economic unit was. My idea of an economic unit is a farm on which a man, a woman and four children have a net income of at least R4 000 per year. He should be able to make a decent living in agriculture as well. Why should he always walk around half-empoverished? Why can he not live as well as the man in the city? This is our idea of an economic unit.

What percentage earn R4 000?

The figure was given to the hon. member a short while ago by the hon. member for Swellendam—it is more than R6 000, but it includes big and small farmers. Go and calculate the figure according to our agricultural turnover. In fact, according to the hon. member for Swellendam, it is even more. I think the hon. member calculated it on the basis of 83 000 farmers and not 90 000. This possibly produces a completely different figure.

I come now to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. I want to explain why I became angry. It is because the hon. member read out that I had supposedly said: “The hon. members know that the fat was in the fire when we told them in November that we had no local butter”. I never read a Hansard after I have spoken, but I see here—I do not know for what reason—and I am not criticizing either— that it has been deleted and that here stands what I clearly remember having said on Thursday, namely that the fat “would have been (sou wees) in the fire if in November we …” that is quite a different matter.

But “would have been” (sou wees) has been deleted. The second “would” (sou) was deleted.

But I am saying that it has been deleted. I have just read out what I said. Perhaps it was a play on words which was rectified so that the sentence could read properly. But when the hon. member read it, he wanted to make political capital out of it. What was my argument? Because hon. members reproached us for having imported our butter, I made it clear to them last Thursday that nobody knew the coinciding circumstances which led to the consumption of butter dropping by almost 40 per cent as a result of yellow margarine. The Dairy Board ordered butter on a competitive market, but the butter is transported by sea and one could not predict on what day the ship would arrive. We see that as a result of drought there was a decrease in production. The hon. member has insinuated that we do not pay the dairy farmers enough for their cream. If he had practical knowledge of this problem, he would realize that as a result of the increase in the price of meat and as a result of his labour and Sunday labour problems, the farmer would switch over to the production of meat instead of sending milk to the industries. All these problems must be foreseen. The late King Solomon would not have had a solution to this problem as long as he did not know in November what would happen in January. Butter was ordered, but in the meantime we sat with the problem of yellow margarine.

The hon. members kick up a fuss about yellow margarine. The hon. member for Bloemfontein District has brought me a newspaper cutting which a lady sent him. She was bitter because we were being attacked about butter. It is an English-speaking lady from Natal who sent it to the hon. member. The cutting is from the Daily News of 7th November, 1945, and reads as follows—

When was this?

In 1945. I read further—

They wanted to hold a protest meeting. At the same time it was decided that “butterless people demand margarine”. In their time these butterless people had to tighten their belts.

They received margarine, yellow margarine. In 1945 I myself ate yellow margarine.

As a dairy farmer, I was not in favour of yellow margarine, but because of circumstances and pressure, we felt that we should give the people something cheaper to put on their bread. I want to put a question to the hon. member, who is chairman of their dairy committee. I stated emphatically in the debate—he did not quote it—that it had appeared that the quotas allocated would be exhausted by March. I am asking the hon. member whether we should increase the quotas for yellow margarine, yes or no. Now the hon. member is drinking water! It is easy to sit in the Opposition benches. Some days I would also enjoy sitting there and making irresponsible statements. If the hon. member said that the quotas should be increased, the dairy farmers would have it in for him, and if he said no, the housewives would have it in for him. Therefore it is easy to criticize and it seems to me that I should remain calm and never become angry about these matters.

I come now to the hon. member for Newton Park. He asked me where the Minister was. Yesterday the hon. member for South Coast said that the Deputy Minister should also have powers, as the Minister has, so that he may delegate in respect of the purchasing of land. However, hon. members opposite are more than incensed because the Minister has delegated me to be here this afternoon. How does one understand that? Let me tell hon. members what the Minister is doing at the moment. At the moment he is working for the farmers of South Africa. Why should he be here if I am here? Surely we want to be efficient. Surely two people are not needed to pulverize a crowd like that! I personally was pleased with the letters we received from agricultural unions and farmers’ associations about the way in which we combated the locust plague. Last year the department spent R2 million on the combating of locusts and bishop birds. Farmers also praise us for tackling these plagues on such a large scale. However, the hon. member for Newton Park has criticized our method of eradicating locusts. He asked why we had not given the poison to the farmers. Ten years ago we gave poison to farmers, and six years later we were still discovering poison to the value of several thousands of rands stored away on farms in case the farmer had a shortage one day. The department cannot exercise control over an area of 800 miles and cannot visit all the farms in the areas where locusts must be combated. These are facts I obtained from the departments.

I come now to the Gamtoos issue. The hon. member made a joke of it by saying that I had said that we should prevent the storms. It is so easy to distort something. Do hon. members know that the Gamtoos Valley scheme is going to cost the tax-payer R5 million? Does the hon. member know that in terms of a motion he himself has seconded here, we have allowed the Gamtoos Valley farmers to cultivate land in the basin of the river? Does he realize that if another flood disaster strikes next year again, that R5 million in income tax money can wash away again? Is it not my duty to issue a warning and to say that farmers should not cultivate lands in the basin of the river, because the area is subject to periodic floods? My words to the farmers were that we should see whether we should not perhaps leave this deep alluvial soil which attracts everyone, and perhaps farm according to other methods. Was it wrong to say that? Furthermore, I asked them whether we should not have more catchment areas in the upper reaches in order to prevent a possible disaster. The taxpayers cannot pay R5 million every two years in order to reclaim land. However, the hon. member for Newton Park has said that we waited three months before announcing any aid. At the meeting the Minister told the farmers they should continue with their work and rebuild their farms. He said he had to go to the Cabinet and hold discussions with the Minister of Finance. However, he undertook to get Cabinet approval for 50 per cent of the costs of rebuilding their land. Those farmers came to us with tears in their eyes because we were there when the water was still flowing and because we offered to help them. Today, however, we are being reproached because the farmers supposedly had to wait for three months before they received aid. It is not pleasant if one tries to do one’s duty and political capital is subsequently made out of it. The position is that the surveys took much time. All the farms had to be visited in order to determine what each farmer should receive. Some farmers’ land had been completely washed away. Those persons had to be resettled. Surely one could not at that junction have said to him: “Man, we are going to give you another farm”. The matter must be investigated. One needs officials to go and look where one can resettle the farmer. I think the country would experience a disaster if the member for Newton Park ever became Minister of Agriculture.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet spoke about the stock withdrawal scheme. The hon. members for Walmer and for East London City have praised us. Everyone has praised us, and the agricultural unions also told us that initially we should grant a withdrawal allowance of R2 per sheep. Subsequently this became R2,50 and later R3 per sheep. Up to R5 000 was paid to the farmer in order to withdraw 2 500 sheep on a sliding scale. The hon. member for Newton Park held a meeting at Graaff-Reinet. Here is a report on it. The following words appear in that report—

He must withdraw 75 per cent of his sheep, but then you must compel him to stay on the farm. The farmer who had 400 sheep, would have only 100 sheep. A strong young man of 30 years may not go and work. He must look after 100 sheep. Just think of it! This is what he said and those farmers said to me: “Man, do you think that a man in full possession of his faculties could come and make such a suggestion at Graaff-Reinet?” Today he has the courage to criticize, because the Minister of Agriculture has decided that the stock withdrawal scheme …

May I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister?

You must put it quickly.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to read the headline to that article?

“Farmers call for investigation of Streicher’s Stock Reduction Scheme”. What is wrong with that.

This is what the farmers there requested. Why do you not investigate it?

There were 12 farmers.

There were 13, but that has nothing to do with the price of eggs. I should like to come to the recommendations of the Du Plessis Commission which were tabled here yesterday. Since I have had to spend so much time replying to these negative statements and attempts to catch a few votes, let the hon. members please put up a candidate in Oudtshoorn. I shall enjoy holding a meeting in Oudtshoorn and telling the farmers: “Listen to what they are saying about what a lot of bad farmers we have in South Africa”.

I want to refer to what this Du Plessis Commission recommended. I want to ask: Why do the hon. members refer to the debt of the farmers in South Africa? There is a debt of R1 300 million, but the assets of the farmers of South Africa amount to R7 000. Say, for example, there are 83 000 farmers in South Africa. I think hon. members would like this number to be even less, but that small number of farmers is producing increasingly more for a growing population. In the past 20 years, the smaller number of farmers have increased their annual production by an average of 4,4 per cent. This is a country which harvested agricultural products to the value of R1 600 million last year and which has doubled the production in 20 years. Over the same period our population increase was 2,3 per cent a year. It is a small number of farmers who bought 15 000 tractors alone last year for R41,8 million.

And their net profit has dropped.

Regarded globally, the net profit of these farmers has increased. We mentioned the figure to you a moment ago. There are none so blind as those who do not want to see. We have given him the figure. What is the most important issue in agriculture? The Du Plessis Commission illustrates this so strikingly. Do not reproach the Government and say how many thousands of tons of soil have been washed away; do not tell the State to do this or that. Let us please retain the self-respect and initiative of the farmer. I am saying there are farmers who definitely cannot make the grade because they are not economically suited. Such a farmer is not a business man; he is not the right jockey in farming. But there are so many dozens of them, and the Commission says we should look at the farmer who has made a success of his enterprise in our country. Let us be positive for a change. In spite of everything hon. members have mentioned, how many of those farmers have helped to attain this production without State aid, but with its support?

The hon. member referred to Onderstepoort. Last year an undertaking such as Onderstepoort, which is a State institution and the only one of its type in the world, made 140 million doses of spray and vaccine available to African countries and other countries in the world. Not one of them will rise and say that this is indeed an achievement by the Department of Agriculture—forget about the Government —but all we get is a campaign of disparagement from start to finish. I am proud to be able to be a member of this Government, because I do not have to pull my hat down over my eyes for the farmers, in spite of the problems and bottlenecks with which they have to contend.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion lapsed.