I wish to move the notice standing in my name on the Order Paper, viz.—

1. (a) extending the application of the following to date, viz.:
   1. (i) the Farm Mortgage Interest Act, No. 34 of 1933;
   2. (ii) section 20 of Act No. 29 of 1933; and
   3. (iii) the Farmers’ Assistance Act, No. 48 of 1935; and
2. (b) immediately appointing a commission, consisting of four active and practical farmers, one of the heads of the Farmers’ Assistance Board, Mr. A. C. Wilmot of the Land Bank and one economist, with the object of enquiring into such position.

Before discussing the various points I first propose to give a general review of the position so as to prove that what we ask for here is not something nonsensical which we want to, bring before Parliament. Last year already the national woolgrowers sent a resolution to this House signed by 21,000 wool farmers, because the wool farmers realised that the position of the farmers had become impossible, and the then Minister of Finance took steps to give a certain measure of relief to farmers. We now feel that at the present time this relief is again needed and that that Act should again be applied. The National Woolgrowers approved of this proposal, the farmers’ associations approved of it and the farmers’ group of the United Party also agreed to it. It will thus be clear that there is no trace of politics or anything of the sort behind this proposal. This is a state of emergency, and I readily admit that it is not a solution for the future of our farmers. It is only a temporary solution and it will give temporary relief in the circumstances in which we are to-day and in which we have been for the last few years. I want to read you something which will indicate what the position of the farmers is, and I want to read from the White Book laid on the Table of the House last year, and hon. members who do not understand the position or who think that the position is not serious, will then change their opinion. I want to compare it with the year 1928-’29, when farming was carried on in normal circumstances, and I want to point out how other industries have advanced since those years, whereas farmers have since 1928 continually encountered difficulties. I wish to read out first the wholesale index, thereafter the retail index and then that of agriculture. The retail index in the year 1929 was 97, in 1930 it was 85, in 1931 83, in 1932 76, in 1933 it was 77, in 1934 85, in 1935 79, in 1936 82, in 1937 84, and then we come to 1938 when it was 98. I now want to take the monthly index for the year 1938. I first want to give the agricultural index as compared with the wholesale index. In January the agricultural index, compared to the wholesale index, when the latter stood at 89, was 81. In February it was 77, in March 76, in April 76, in May 76, in June 80, in July 80, in August 76, in September 74, in October 74 and in November-December 80. I furthermore want to read out the index figures for agriculture and compare them with the wholesale figures. These figures again refer to the years from 1929 till 1938. The index figure for 1929 was the most favourable. The figure for 1928 was taken as 100. Since that year it never again reached the figure of 100. In 1929 it was 92; in 1930 it fell to 68; in 1931 it went up to 73 and the year following it dropped to 51. In 1933 it rose to 67 and in 1934 it reached the peak figure of 77; thereafter it fell again to 66 and then it rose again to 77. I now come to the retail prices. When the great slump came it stood at 97; thereafter it was 99 again, and it then fell to 94, 90, 92, 89, 87 and then again rose to 93 for the following years. We see, therefore, that this figure never went lower than 87, whereas the lowest figure for agricultural produce was 51, and the lowest for the retail trade was 84, whereas the lowest wholesale figure was 97. From these figures it can be seen how far the prices for the farmer had fallen. I want, however, to give you a final summary for the year 1938. The wholesale index figure for that year was 87. I want to show that, although this figure was 87, it included farming produce, and if this had not been included, that index figure would have been at least 95. In that same year the index figure for agricultural produce was 77, and that for the retail trade 92. Hon. members will realise that these are not figures compiled by us, but that these are figures taken from the White Book which was laid before this House last year. These are, therefore, authentic figures, and I hope that my hon. friends living in the towns will fully understand that we are not now asking for unnecessary assistance for our farmers. I furthermore want to tell them that we do not begrudge them all the assistance they receive from the Government. I take it they have all read the speech of Mr. Wilmot, published a few days ago, in which this gentleman declared that although the farmers have been assisted to the extent of approximately £22,000,000, they nevertheless loyally fulfil their obligations in regard to redemption and interest on that money. Where my hon. friends have so much to say about assistance given to farmers—and we are grateful for such assistance—they should also realise that we have to pay back every penny of it, and that we also have to pay interest on it. We are very glad that the Government at the time granted that interest subsidy, but I also want to remind my hon. friends on the other side of the fact that large amounts of money have been given to the towns. We know that that money will be refunded, for instance, the money spent on the new harbour works at Cape Town, but the money given to the farmers will also be refunded. This is a national matter, and it is in a sense a matter of national investment. For that reason we do not object to any assistance being given to the towns. We have, for instance, the various housing schemes. Millions have been spent on it, but this is constructive work which is being done, and we do not in the least want to protest against the low interest charged to the towns for housing schemes. I can assure them that we do not begrudge them this assistance and that we have the interests of the country as a whole at heart. I now want to ask them also to consider the country as a whole and to realise that farming is also a part of that whole. I ask them not to assert continually that the farmers are being spoon-fed. The farmer has never yet been spoon-fed. He has always realised that he has to refund what has been given to him. But there are times in the lives of men, and also in the lives of big municipalities and bodies, when they feel financially depressed and are compelled to come to the Government for assistance. This is the reason why we now approach the Government. We feel that the farming industry is in a very precarious position. We realise that the price of farming produce is very low, and there are perhaps hon. members on the other side who want to argue that this is our own fault and who want to ask us why we are not organised, and why we do not stand together. All other industries in this country have received guidance. The gold mining industry received guidance; so did the wholesale trade, but the farming industry has never yet received any guidance. What had been built up by one government, was destroyed by the next government. I do not want to blame any particular government in this regard. All governments of the past share the blame. We never yet had a financial agricultural policy. The first one we had was during the last government, when we had a temporary policy. But this also was nothing definite which could have advanced us to a certain stage. The temporary relief helps to a certain extent, but if 20 or 30 years ago we had a government with a purpose, which for instance in connection with bonds on farms would have inserted a clause in the Act to the effect that redemption be compulsory, we would to-day have been in a much more favourable position. I admit that the Land Bank is doing something in that direction and that the paying off of the redemption over many years decreases the debt of the farmers and will in the end give relief to those people. This, however, has only been done on a small scale and we must reach the extensive scale. We must have a government which realises that the time has come to extend those facilities so far that they can enquire into and adjust the whole mortgage debt of the farmers. For that reason I shall at a later stage ask for a commission. I do not want to criticise any department of agriculture. I know the circumstances in which those departments have been called together, and I also know the great difficulties which they have to face, and I do not want to criticise them in the least. But in all directions we can observe that our agriculture has never yet come near its goal. Take our cattle industry. We have seen that the Government has spent thousands of pounds on the purchase of good rams, ewes and bulls, but we never yet had the desired results. Why not? Because there has never yet been a goal towards which our policy was directed. In connection with our whole agricultural policy there has never yet been the fixation of a certain aim on which such policy could be built up. A farmer has his goal towards which he strives. The breeder has an ideal which he wants to realise, and if he wants to do so, he has to work purposefully year after year towards the attainment of a certain aim. The state has a duty to fulfil, but unfortunately the state has never yet thought of its duty to give guidance to the agricultural community. These people were not always in the position to be properly educated. The dwellers in the towns have the schools near to their homes. The farmers are hundreds of miles away from the schools. To-day of course the position is very much improved, but our young farmers are still saddled with the difficulties of the past which they have to overcome, and I want to state emphatically that those difficulties will not be overcome, unless we receive practical guidance. There has been too much theoretical work and too little practical training. In this respect also I do not want to criticise anybody, but if we look at our Department of Agriculture, we shall find that there is too little practical experience and too much of the American theory in our agriculture. This is all well and good but if we want to put matters right in our country, we have to follow methods which are adapted to the needs of our country. We have to solve problems in this country, and we cannot solve them with problems of other countries. I hope and trust that our marketing scheme, the new marketing scheme we have inaugurated, will give good results. But even in the Marketing Act and in its composition we all the time see that the attitude remains that the farmer has no goal and that he cannot reach finality. These are other people who have to teach the farmer how to farm and how to sell his produce. I hope that the time will come when we have a government which will put down its foot and indicate a certain direction to proceed in. If the Government does this it will do nothing more than its duty, but before it does not do so, it should not complain of the farmers coming to it for assistance. Take for instance export facilities. What are the export facilities which the farmer to-day enjoys? He has no export facilities to speak of. If we go to Australia we find that they have a system there, and there are export facilities. If we go to New Zealand, we find a system which has been properly worked out and in which the people have confidence. In the Argentine we find the same. Only in South Africa, our poor South Africa, no policy, no way of achieving your aim exists. It is ridiculous to speak of export, when no export facilities are created, if no storage facilities for our products and no cold storage for our meat exist. Which country in the world is going to cancel her agreement with another country to make an agreement with us, if we do not make the necessary provisions in connection with our export. Will England cancel its agreement with the Argentine if they do not know for sure that we shall be able to supply them for a year or for a certain period? They will never do so. Therefore it is the duty of the Government to see that these facilities are created in the way of cold storage, large silos, etc. The farmers do not ask that they should receive this for nothing, but they ask as a right that provision should be made for them. The farmer is as good a citizen of the state as anybody else. Indirectly the whole population lives from the farmers and if a labourer is worthy of his hire, why not the farmer? We find that in all our industries minimum wages have been fixed and I agree that those persons should receive minimum wages, but there is only one section in the country which does not receive minimum wages and those are the farmers. The farmer can drift about on the waves until he either dies or goes bankrupt. Before coming down to Cape Town, I enquired into the position amongst the farmers in the country. I went to attorneys and to members of the Farmers’ Assistance Board and I found out that the position in the country to-day is just as precarious as it was in 1932. Some of my friends in the towns laughed at me, but only the people who are in direct touch with the farmers know how difficult the position in the country is. Hundreds of families live in constant fear of being driven off their farms to-morrow or the day after. There are families whose ancestors owned the farm a hundred years ago already, but who are to-day in danger of being forced to leave it. The position is pitiable. Bankruptcy knocks at their door and there is the danger of being forced off their farm. This is not a political matter. Speaking for myself and the Agricultural Unions, we know no politics in this matter, but I feel that it is the duty of any government, and also of the present Government, to render assistance where we are in great difficulties. We do not simply come and ask for assistance but we also give advice and point out in which way the farmer may be helped. I sincerely hope that assistance will be given along the lines indicated in this proposal. The people outside watch us and what we are doing. The farmers to-day are in a deplorable position. The other day I received a letter from a young man who writes that he saved money all his life and eventually possessed £3.000. He writes that he bought land and took a bond on it, but unfortunately the bondholder now wants his money back and he does not possess the money to pay it. He writes that he is desperate and that he will likely lose the £3.000 also for which he worked all his life, and that he shall have to leave his farm as a poor white. We only ask for protection for the poorer class of farmer, the people whose farms are bonded. We do not plead on behalf of the farmers who have no bonds, but for the people who need assistance and I hope that the present Government will comply with our request. I now want to touch briefly upon the various points of my proposal. In the first place we ask that the Farm Mortgage Interest Act No. 34 of 1933 be extended. I hope this point will be clearly understood. I ask that on bonds contracted after 1933, the 1½ per cent. interest subsidy be also granted. I do not ask that it be made retrospective, and I do not want to demand the impossible, but all I ask is that the subsidy be also given on bonds after 1933. This will cost the Government £50,000 to £100,000 at the utmost. Our young farmers who started after 1933 have never yet had a normal season. I therefore say to-day that they should receive assistance. They are our future farmers. If we force them to come to the towns, what will happen? These are our good young farmers, who if they are not assisted, will have to go to the mines for work or will walk our streets looking for work. In the second place I ask that Clause 20 of the Financial Adjustments Act No. 29 of 1933 be also extended. Any man who contracted a bond before 1934 can receive a hundred per cent. assistance if the creditor cresses him for repayment. Since that time, however, many of our farmers have taken bonds on their properties and they cannot be helped. They do not come under the Farmers’ Assistance Act nor under the Land Bank Act. This is the farmer who has always been solvent and could help himself. Many farmers are proud and did not want to go to these Boards, and after 1934 they had to contract debts and they never had the chance to receive the slightest assistance. Now they are in urgent need of assistance, but as the position is to-day they can only obtain assistance if they come down so far that they are virtually bankrupt. I feel that they form the backbone of our farming community; they are the farmers whose assets still exceed their liabilities by 40 per cent. They have to be assisted before they come down so far that they have to come under the Farmers’ Assistance Act. In the third place I refer in my proposal to the Farmers’ Assistance Act and I only want to remark that a scheme had been worked out to assist to a certain extent farmers who had become over-capitalized and to put them on a sounder footing, but even these people now come into difficulties. Since 1935 they have had a continuous run of bad years, and we feel that the 1935 act should always be there to assist our poor people, our poor farmers. This is the foundation we have to lay down for the future. The 1935 Act should remain in force for the people who become financially embarrassed. If you get hold of these people in the future and use the suspension account in assisting them, they can keep going, or perhaps we may have to write off a certain part in the future or do something else. In any case, if the Act of 1935 remain in force for all times, then that may be made the nucleus of a future scheme to put the farmers on a better footing. I therefore hope that item (iii) will also be accepted. I now come to the final point, viz. (b). I herein ask that a commission be appointed, consisting of four active and practical farmers. I specially put it “practical farmers,” for a person with capital, who is not himself a practical farmer, even although he owns a farm, does not understand the difficulties of a practical farmer. I therefore ask that practical farmers be appointed on the commission. The previous Minister gave us committees and I am positive that from these committees a few first-class farmers could be selected to serve on the commission. I mention in my proposal Mr. A. C. Wilmot, for he is a man who knows the position of our farmers better than hardly anybody else in South Africa. I am sorry he has not a seat in this House. He always was a man who showed sympathy with and common sense in regard to matters pertaining to farming. Then we have the heads of the Farmers’ Assistance Board, of which one might also be selected. Messrs. Steytler and Willoughby Visser are two persons knowing as much about farming conditions as any two other persons in South Africa, and I therefore feel that they should also be members of the commission. Furthermore I ask that one economist be made a member of the commission. The country looks at what we are going to do to-day and I hope that the Government will meet us and will assist us in the way asked for.

I wish to second the proposal. I do not believe there has ever been a time in the history of the farming community in which the economic and financial position was as bad as it is to-day. I doubt whether they ever had to face the future with as little prospects as they have at the present. Our farming population has not yet recovered from the depression which followed on the last Great War. We have now seen from the figures which have been quoted here to what extent the economic position of the farming population has deteriorated, especially as compared with the other sections of the population. We also find that the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech here said something which hits the nail on the head as far as this position is concerned. The Minister of Finance said that as far as economic matters are concerned, the belligerent countries this time started where they left off last time. He said that control systems have been introduced and can be applied in this war, which will prevent prices of products soaring again to the same extent as happened last time. The Minister thereby addressed a definite warning to the farming community. He said that the farmers should not harbour any unfounded expectations in regard to a rise in preces during this war. We know that Great Britain is the biggest market for farming produce and we know, as the Minister of Finance also pointed out, that the prices are to be limited, that Great Britain wants to keep the prices of foodstuffs and other products during the present war as low as possible. We know that we live in a period where we have not yet recovered from the calamities of the last depression. I can also quote what the Minister of Finance said last year in the White Book in respect of the position of farming and prices. This was before the price level had been fixed as it has been done now. What will be the position of the farmers in the near future? The Minister of Finance declared in his White Book last year—

We not only find lower prices on the one side, but the relation of the price level between what we receive for our produce and what we have to pay for what we buy, has been entirely upset, as was pointed out so clearly in the proposal of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker), and this is a matter of national importance. The Minister also focussed his attention on it when he said—

Here we have a national matter which has to be solved. One does not find any longer that the best sons remain on the farms, they leave the farms one after the other. One can go to districts where on one farm after the other one cannot find young sons any more, and what is the reason for this? Because they go to the towns, and farming is continued on the bywoner system. This is a very difficult problem. The Minister of Finance offered a fine proposal for the assistance to the secondary industries, but that generation has not yet been educated and in the meantime the sons of the best families in the country leave the farms. There is still another aspect of this matter and the then Minister of Finance said in connection therewith—

I hope that the hon. member who is now speaking to the Minister of Finance will give him a chance to listen, for I need his attention to the utmost. As I said, we have no prospect in farming with all these difficulties. Let us go one step further. Although I agree with the saying, “Comparisons are odious”, I should like to compare farming with the very favourable position of the mines, and I want to compare it with the position of our secondary industries. Whilst agreeing that we derive much benefit from the mines, we find that by the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance, the mines have been placed in such a favourable position, that a “boom” occurred on the share market. I am sorry that we cannot obtain a “boom” in our farming industry. The Minister of Finance in his Budget speech said that competition had been eliminated in the secondary industries and he said—

This is the position in regard to the industry, where we find a “boom” not only as a result of the Budget speech of the Minister, but also as a result of the policy laid down by the Government. We know that the further the pound sterling falls, the greater will be the profit made by the gold mines, but we also know that if a price is fixed for primary products, then the value of these products falls if the value of the pound sterling falls. But we have to go further. The proposal of the hon. member for Cradock does not cover the whole field. It is impossible to solve the problems of the farmers with a stroke of the pen, but we ask that until such time as the report of the commission will be available, in order to put farming on a sound foundation, that the various sections of the farming industry be brought under the Farmers’ Assistance Act. I want to ask the Minister to appoint capable members of the Farmers’ Relief Board who enjoy the confidence of our farmers, on that commission in order to formulate a sound policy. I remember the visit they made to my constituency last year, which was most instructive and useful to them, for the district I represent is a part of the country which is suffering most from the economic slump. In order to show what the actual position is, and I specially want to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance who is not so well acquainted with farming affairs, to it, I want to read the following figures. The magisterial district of Wodehouse is 1,189 square miles in extent, and it consists of 359,672 morgen of land. There one finds already 120 farms of 250 morgen or less and 480 farms of more than 250 morgen. This district has a European population, the village included which also depends for a living on the farms, of 4,392, but including the natives and coloureds the population of the district amounts to 13,738. What is the position in the village as a result of this? One finds that one big business after the other has to close down. I can assure you that it is most striking to see that in the villages one big business after the other has to close down. Why should this happen? Because as a result of the impossible market prices the district more and more deteriorates economically. You will be surprised to hear that an amount of not less than £176,493 has been borrowed in the district of Wodehouse, and this is in respect of 72 leaseholders and 588 ordinary farmers or tenants and owners. These people have contracted loans of £176,493. But to give you a further example, this district together with other districts has gone through disasters such as droughts and cattle diseases, which it had to suffer one after the other. This district has lost during the last fourteen years no less than 404,589 sheep in an area with a stocking capacity of 700,000 sheep. Furthermore we find that the cattle being pawned for loans amount to no less than 5,724, and the amount of sheep so pawned is no less than 136,562 out of a total of 562,000 in the district of Wodehouse, which is about 25 per cent. As regards cattle 5,724 have been pawned out of a total of 65,211 and the farm bonds there are so high that it is absolutely impossible that these farmers will ever get rid of their debts or become solvent again. What happens here happens all over South Africa and if it does not happen to-day, then it will happen to-morrow. On the other side sits the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward), who, although himself a sheep farmer, represents especially the citrus farmers and if the citrus farmers do not get relief, they will also go down. The same can be said of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). If no way out of the difficulty is found, they will go down, especially if the depression comes, which is bound to come after the war and which will be much more severe than the depression we have now. We ask the Minister of Finance to take steps immediately in order to raise the price level of the farmers’ produce as far as he can so that they may be able to face the difficulties which will come.

Mr. Speaker, I support this motion wholeheartedly. I do not always agree with my hon. friend who has just spoken, but on this particular occasion I can say that I agree with him wholeheartedly. The position of the farmers is being stressed in the country to-day. These measures as we all know were emergency measures, designed only to help the farmer out of an extraordinary position due to the depression. I do not propose to repeat what has already been said but I feel that while these measures have been effective in keeping many of our farmers on the land and saving them from bankruptcy, they can never put the farmers of this country on a proper economic footing. I would rather coniine my remarks to what is wrong in regard to the Government’s policy in relation to farming. I wish the proposer of the motion, when he suggested a commission, would have extended the enquiry of that commission to the policy of the Government with regard to farming. If he did that the Government would not only enquire into the difficulties of the farmer but might suggest improvements in their policy which would tend to put the farming industry on a better footing.

I would just like to mention a few difficulties that we farmers have in this country, and I am glad that the Minister for Lands is in his place. We have always felt that our land settlement policy in this country was on a wrong footing. We are up against difficulties every day of our lives. We find that when a settler wishes to get on to the land he is hampered in every way. He has to get an option on a piece of land and that option has to be forwarded to the Lands Department. Often we find that the farm is most suitable, it is a good farm, but his application is turned down because the price is too high, or else the farm is too big. Most of our failures in regard to land settlement have been due to the fact that the farms which the land board has bought for settlers are not, what is called in Australia, economic units. Most of these farms cannot support a farmer and his family. The farmer has either been forced to buy poor land, so as to come within the Minister’s policy of not paying high prices, and the settler is saddled with a farm that makes successful farming impossible. I have had cases where applications have been made to the Minister for small farms, only 500 acres, but because the prices of those 500 acres were high, they were turned down. Some of these men have got assistance elsewhere and have paid these high prices, and have made a success of their farming, and have come out well. Had they been beholden to the Minister only they would have been forced to buy cheaper land and perhaps land which was not suitable for good farming purposes, and they would have failed. I hope the Minister will in future try and alter his policy in regard to land settlement, and only buy good land for settlement, even if it is high in price, and see that that land can produce a living to the man you want to put on it. You want to be near the markets, you want to be on railway lines to get your produce to the markets, and, of course, if you have those advantages and other advantages, the price of land must be higher than that of the cheap land which does not enjoy those advantages. I hope the Minister will take into serious consideration this position, that a man can only make a living on a farm if it is a good farm. With the low prices which we enjoy to-day it is only good land and a good farmer who can make a living. The Minister, by turning down applications for land, the price of which he considers too high, will not bring down the price of land. He is forcing people to go away from markets, away from lines of communication, and he is making these men go into parts where they have to pioneer, and live like the old pioneers in the olden days, without markets, so that the production of their products is of no value. I hope the Minister will try and meet us in this matter and that he will be willing to pay a reasonable price for land, and also that he will not force a man to buy too small a property because he cannot find the money to buy a larger one. Now there are several other things which we find wrong with regard to the Government’s policy on the matter of agriculture. We in this country are in a very difficult position as regards the farmers. As has been mentioned already the industries of this country are protected to a very large extent, and as a result of that protection, we are paying, the farmers who are consumers as well as producers, are paying very high prices for our requirements. The Government has adopted a policy that they will not consider subsidies any more, but instead of subsidies these industries which are being started in this country are protected at our ports, and instead of getting subsidies they have the protection of custom duties, with the result that the prices to the consumers are raised. But should any of our control schemes fix the prices of our products—say butter, for instance, at 1s. per lb. more than in the past—there at once is an outcry in this country. The consumers of the country do not realise that our costs of production have gone up enormously through the policy of the Government to encourage industries and also through the higher prices of our requirements from overseas. I think that greater powers should be given to our marketing schemes with regard to the fixing of prices, that they should be able to take into consideration our higher costs and not keep us down to a price at which the farmer cannot possibly make a living. I would also like to suggest that this huge market of ours which all the countries of the world are trying to make use of, should be made use of by ourselves in finding markets for our products in other countries. We should make use of our markets here to get trade agreements with other countries which can take our products, and in return we can give them favourable treatment in taking products from them. With regard to. Great Britain and the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, we have in the past had a preferential tariff scheme. But I feel that those preferential tariffs have not been of the assistance to us that they should have been. They have not been high enough to put us in a favourable position as against the countries with which we have had to compete, and I feel that we are in a strong enough position to demand that these preferential tariffs should be made more effective than they have been in the past. If Great Britain and the other Dominions value our markets for their products we could use that in making an agreement with them to make our markets effective to them in the sale of their products. We have heard a great deal about the difficulties of farming in this country, but, Mr. Speaker, this country can be made into a successful farming country. Our Department of Agriculture spends a great deal of money and time, which is very necessary, in investigating many of our troubles, both economic and otherwise. But the things that really should help us, that is to market our products to advantage in this country and in other countries, we have had very little result from, and it is only by getting a price which will enable us to live on farming that this country can be made successful in that respect. It is no good getting rid of diseases and being able to produce high-grade stock and products unless we can sell them at a profit, and I feel that our Department of Agriculture and the Government should concentrate on that one thing—that is to improve our markets overseas and in this country, and allow our marketing schemes, our control boards, to fix prices for our products on a basis on which the farmers of this country can live. Unless we do that I am afraid that we are still going to be in need of these relief measures which I know the Government, and also the rest of the public of this country, have criticised us for making use of in the past. I do not intend taking up the time of the House further, because I know there are a great many others who wish to speak on this motion. But I hope the result of this debate will encourage the Government to do something far better than has been done in the past to put farming in a sounder and better economic position than it has been.

I want to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, which reads as follows—

1. (c) introducing legislation during the present session to make provision for assisting farmers with regard to, the urgent problem of the shortage of farm labour, especially during the harvesting season.

I have agreed with the mover of the motion to put this proposal in the form of an amendment. I had put a motion on the Order Paper in connection with this matter, but because I found that there would be so little time at our disposal and that my motion would probably never be reached, I made this arrangement. I am convinced that this question is a very important one, that it is so important that we cannot allow this session to pass without debating it fully in this House, and to learn the views of hon. members on both sides about it. Circumstances have arisen in this country during the past few years which are not a bad indication of the state of the country, namely, that the demand for labour has so increased that the demand has become considerably greater than the supply on the labour market. Various things have contributed to that, and I will go into this matter in detail later on. I want at first just to say that we, the farming community, find ourselves in the impossible position today that we cannot continue our farming operations, because there is such a large shortage of farm labour, like that we are experiencing to-day. I want to say later on that I agree that in many respects, possibly, a greater economic use could be made of the labour which is at our disposal, but the position is nevertheless so serious that the Government appointed a commission of enquiry two years ago to investigate fully that problem of farm labour, or rather of the shortage of farm labour. That commission has practically travelled through the whole of the Union, and I have in my hand the comprehensive report which that commission made. I do not know whether hon. members have read it; it is a bulky document, but it is a valuable document, and they mentioned to us many of the basic causes why we are to-day in the position we are in, and it will do us a great deal of good as farmers to read this report, and for us to acknowledge that to a great extent we are in some respects ourselves to blame. But this report also suggests where the Government of the country ought to give assistance and help the farming community to go on with their farming. In spite of what the absent hon. members from the Witwatersrand may say on the matter, it is still a fact that farming in South Africa is a much bigger industry, and of far more importance to South Africa, than the goldmining industry. I remember that a few years ago a Bill was passed to make it possible for the gold mines to obtain the additional labour that they required in consequence of development of the mines, from north of the 22nd degree of south latitude, the area to which they were previously permitted to go and look for labour to provide for their needs. Well, we were glad to see that the Government of the day immediately treated the matter seriously, and appointed a commission of enquiry. It was a capable commission of enquiry as well. I have the report here in my hand. Now let me put the matter in this way. This report appeared twelve months ago, but as far as I know no action has ever yet been taken on it, and I want to ask the Minister, or the Government, to give us the assurance that something will be done in the direction of making a solution of this problem possible for us. I am not only going to consider the position from the farmer’s point of view; I am not only going to bring the difficulties before the House. I shall also, as far as in me lies, suggest directions which we can explore and I shall make use of the report to make quotations from it, of good suggestions which may be agreed to, in order to assist us in connection with this matter of the shortage of farm labour. The matter is so serious that farmers themselves are being forced to take their children out of school to help them on the farms. The man has obligations to fulfil, and if he has no labour to do his work, then the whole family will have to leave the farm, and the result is that promising children are taken out of school to assist the father with his farm work. I would also just like to say that the matter to which the Minister of Native Affairs might give particular attention, is a matter which concerns the population of the released areas. Natives are now being transferred to those areas. Recently I put a few questions to the Minister, and the questions were very satisfactorily answered —that I want to admit—but now I just want to tell the Minister that what is happening there in practice does not coincide with his reply. I am thinking, for instance, of a released area very close to me, and I know fairly well what is going on there. The Minister will surely admit that he received letters from the farmers’ association after he made the reply to me in this House, and that the farmers can point out that the position, in practice, is different to what he stated in his reply, and that the policy of the Government is not being carried out on the lines stated in the reply. I am only mentioning this to assist the Minister, so that he will know that the policy of the Government is not being carried out as intended. In the area, for instance, about which I am speaking, during the past season—we know that our native labourers usually trek to the mealie areas from August to October—that during the past season from August to September numbers of labourers were transferred from the farms of the farmers to the released areas, and I can give the Minister the assurance that they were simply natives who, in accordance with the intention of the Act, should not go to those areas. I want to tell the Minister that natives were present in the areas for a month before they were given a pass to trek, and they were accepted by the native commissioner without passes. I also want to tell the Minister that while he was overseas, and while the Minister without Portfolio, who unfortunately is not in his place, was acting for him, we became accustomed to the Minister without Portfolio. The farmers in my neighbourhood very highly appreciated the letter which we received from the Minister without Portfolio, and the courteous and reasonable way in which he dealt with the request. I also appreciate it, and all who were concerned with the matter appreciated it. But there also once more, the Minister was not au fait with what was going on in connection with the released areas. The Minister says, for instance, in the letter that he cannot understand my saying that the labourers of farmers are being employed in the areas inasmuch as they do not employ a single native who does not have a pass. But what farmers can refuse to give a native a pass, and if the native has a pass, the Minister assumes that that complies with the obligations, so far as the natives are concerned. No, that is not what we want. We would like the Minister to apply a system which will make that kind of creeping through the fence, that kind of evading an Act, impossible. I should be glad if the Minister will consider the appointment of local people in every district as, an advisory committee, under the chairmanship of the magistrate or the native commissioner, for the purpose of advising and settling what type of natives should be transferred to the released areas, and what class will be better off on the farms. I do not want to go any further into the matter, but it is very serious if the released areas are being populated in this way, so that the labour of the farmers is being drawn away. That causes great dissatisfaction, and it will be a disaster to the farming population. I therefore ask in my motion that the Government will do something. In my motion I speak of legislation, but I know it is too late to get legislation this session, and I am prepared to amend my proposal in such a way that we will ask the Government to institute a scheme or something to come into force this session in order to meet the great shortage on the farms. If the Minister wishes it, I will immediately amend my amendment in any way provided only that it complies with the object that we have in view. Something must also be done in connection with the shortage of farm labour. Now you will possibly say that that is all very well, but what is the cause and what is the remedy? I want to mention a few points here, a few thoughts which have arisen in my mind. In the first place we find that thousands and thousands of farm labourers are attracted to the roads and to the railways. Let me put it in this wav: The national roads and other roads, and the railways in our country to-day attract many labourers in consequence of the development which is going on. Thousands and thousands of natives who were still in the service of the farmers yesterday have been drawn away to the roads and railways, because the Government offered them a higher wage than what the farmers could pay. Now hon. members who represent the natives saw that our farmers must pay more. If our farmers were able to pay more, they would willingly nay, more. I admit that the duty rests on us to improve the wages for our labour from time to time, according to what we can afford, but we cannot compete with the Government, and hon. members will have to admit that if the wages of the farmers were to be say 3s. a day, and the Government were to need labour on the railways or on the roads, then the Government would be obliged to pay 6d. or 1s. more in order to get the labour. So we would be going round in a circle and it would not lead to the solution of the question. I would like to suggest, I do not know to what extent it is practical, that the Government should establish separate recruiting bureaus in areas where it will not mean that farm labour will be drawn away. They could, for instance, establish such bureaus in the Transkei, or in Zoutpansberg, and possibly in other areas where there is a large number of natives who do not usually work on farms. In the second place, there is to-day a flocking of natives to the towns, again in consequence, in the main, of the fact that better wages are offered to the natives in the towns. To a certain extent, at any rate, that is the case. It will, however, also be admitted that ultimately it does not benefit the native to go from the farm to the town and earn 1s. more if he subsequently comes back from the town ruined in body and soul, if he cannot save a penny in the town. I consider that under the Native Urban Areas Act, the rush to the towns should be stopped with the co-operation of the municipalities. Unfortunately, the position is that the municipalities in the country allow vagrants to remain in the locations as much as possible. Why? If there are 50,000 natives left over every day in a town like Johannesburg, then it is very easy for people in Johannesburg to get adequate labour. But is it economic? It is a fact which can easily be established, that in every town a large number of natives are unemployed, that in the locations in some cases there are more natives unemployed than what are earning wages. I know that the Minister will be told that there are no superfluous natives in the urban areas, because under the capitalistic system which we know, it is to the advantage of the employers that there should be as much available labour as possible which cannot get any other employment than what the employers offer them. I hope that I have put that point clearly also. I want to suggest that the Government itself should stop the rush to the towns, and also have offices there to enquire into matters, and also in order to keep lists of natives, for instance, who live permanently in the locations, and of natives who are there temporarily, and in that way a weeding-out could take place, and the Government could see that only the number that was required should be allowed to remain in an urban area. By that I do not mean that if there is work for 5,000, that only 5,000 should be admitted, but just a reasonable number. If it is necessary 1,000 or 2.000 or 5.000 more could possibly be admitted into an urban area to provide for the reasonable needs. But we must avoid the position of having 50.000 or 60.000 natives squatting in an urban area unnecessarily, because that only leads to things being done which ought not to be done and leads to all kinds of troubles. The third great reason why there is such a tremendous shortage of farm labour is due to the development of our mines and of our secondary industries. They also are things which we are all anxious to have, but the farmers are suffering from a shortage of labour in consequence of them. Tn the fourth place. I am thinking of the younger class of native—who is very useful on a farm, say between the ages of fourteen and twenty years. Usually the parents do not want them to go to the town, so that I would like to suggest that the Government should meet us by giving cheaper travelling rates to natives who want to go from the Transkei or ony other native reserve, to the farms. The parents usually do not want the young natives to go to the towns, where they are led astray and get into bad company, but if they can be placed with decent farmers they will be at a suitable place, and can be trained into skilled farm labourers. Perhaps they could be sent to certain farmers on the recommendation of a magistrate, or a farmers’ association. In that way thousands of young natives will be able to find work there, which will be for the benefit of the natives themselves and of the farming community. If they can be trained from their youth, they will learn farming work properly, and ultimately will be able to make a good living as farm labourers. I want to mention another case where our farmers are sinning now, and it is where we are not economically using our labour. We find many cases, especially on the mealie farms, where half-day shifts are worked. The native is used from 7 in the morning until 1 p.m. to plough, and then he is at liberty. He therefore does not do a full days’ work, and if the farmers were to pay the natives more in those cases, in order to get them to work until night, as was the custom in the past, then we should be able to manage with less labour. That is where I feel the farmers are behaving wrongly in making an uneconomic use of the labour which they have. No. 6 is this, the development of the agricultural industry which has occasioned a shortage, a tremendous shortage. In the seventh place, we find that in the houses, especially in the towns, young native girls are no longer being employed as in the past, but male natives are being used in the houses and in the kitchens, especially in the towns. That also has deprived farmers of quite a number of labourers. Then I think that the squatting system is a great waste of labour. We have parts of the country where the natives work for three months on a farm, and then they can squat on the farm for the rest of the year and do nothing, or they can go and work in the towns. I think that is a wrong system by which the native becomes urbanised. He becomes separated from the farm that he was connected with, and he becomes a town man. I think that this system is a great waste of labour. I have now suggested that the Government should themselves control the influx of natives to the towns in order to make it effective, and I asked that the Government should help them by making the transportation expenses, the travelling facilities for natives to go to the farms easier, because I expect that that will assist matters. But I think it is necessary for the Government to establish a bureau to enable the farmers to get hold of the necessary labour. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a few summaries from the report of the commission. The first I want to quote is in paragraph 481 on page 86 Afrikaans version and there I find the following [translation]—

Then it goes on in paragraph 482—

1. (a) To register all natives looking for work with full details about them, and the kind of work they are looking for;
2. (b) to record all applications for labour with the necessary details; and
3. (c) to make the necessary arrangements to comply with the demands of (a) and (b) in accordance with the regulations and instructions which the department may prescribe.

And then we go further and come to the summary of the inferences and recommendations. In chapter 1 we find the following conclusion in paragraph 25—

I hope that the Minister will realise that the complete conclusion of the commission is this, that there is a lack of labour on the farms. Their answer is: Yes, there is a great shortage on the farms. It is said—

In paragraph 28 it is recapitulated as follows—

I cannot go into all the questions, but they are very useful and valuable, and I am very sorry that few hon. members have read the report to see what has been suggested there. I know that all the hon. members who represent farming districts would like to express their views, and it would also be a good thing if we can hear different views, as much as possible, and therefore I want to close here. I hope that the matter will be dealt with on its merits, and that neither side will try to make party political capital out of it. I have tried, and I hope I have succeeded in keeping all politics out of it. We farmers will follow the debate with interest, because many farmers had, many years ago, to buy tractors because they could get no labour. Now the feul is so dear that they cannot use the tractors. The cost of the tractors is a heavy tax on the exhausted farming community, and they did not buy the tractors because they wanted to do so, but because they were without labour and could not go on. I hope that we shall come to a decision in the House to give the Government instructions that even if they cannot introduce any legislation now, they will still take some steps immediately in connection with this matter, and I am prepared to accept a motion from the Government in that direction.

I wish briefly to second the amendment of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) and I associate myself with the motion of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker). May I say at once that I do not want to create a wrong impression, namely that we are asking for legislation in some form or other, and in order to remove misunderstanding I want at once to say that we identify ourselves with this report of the native commission, where they say in paragraph 482 that they are at the same time of opinion that it would be wrong to make native labour on the farms compulsory. We have not the least idea of having forced labour established there, because otherwise the whole matter will be wrecked. I can therefore reassure hon. members over there. The fact is that the labour question is an absolutely serious one, and as it is serious we shall be glad if we can find some solution or other. But I see that the report also says—

There is no doubt that it is becoming worse every year. Let me give you a few practical difficulties. The proposal in the amendment was introduced by a representative from the Transvaal, who mainly represents grain farmers, and I am a representative from the Karroo, mostly stock farmers. I can give you examples where formerly we needed one or two workmen, owing to jackal-proof farms, but because we got the serious blowfly pest, many more are now required. It is not a matter which we can postpone for a few days. We need the labourers immediately when circumstances require them. If the blow-fly comes we need that help immediately, and if the Government does not assist us in that respect in some way or other, then the position becomes very serious.

I brought this to the notice of the Government last year, that labour had become so scarce that not in one instance, but in many instances I knew of, the farmers had to take the sheep and herd them themselves, simply because there was no labour, and also that we could not get it. The difficulty is even worse, owing to a farmer not always being able to afford the necessary wire, and, as you know, the wire has been stopped to-day. Then in connection with the harvest, you know that we in the Karoo, where our labourers are very scarce, chiefly use coloured labour. We do not have big harvests, but last year we had to pay 4s. 6d. to have 100 bundles reaped. You cannot understand what the cost of production of wheat, etc., will then amount to. But not only will you find the lack of them there; you will see that one of the serious complaints is that of the housewives, who can get no labour for the house. Wherever you may go the labour question is very serious. What can you attribute it to? As the hon. member said, this report gives us many suggested causes which we can go into. I want strongly to recommend the reading of the report, but there is one point that they did not see, and it is not in connection with the natives, but in connection with the coloured people. It is, as a matter of fact, that the pensions scheme for coloured people acts injuriously when we are dealing with coloured labour. We find coloured people who draw a pension of 15s. a month, and what happens then? Such an individual immediately goes to the village, and he goes there to stay. The children and the rest of the family follow him, with the result that the coloured people leave the farms. I do not want by that to suggest that this scheme is wrong, but I say that unless something is done to prohibit those pensioners from going to live in the villages the farmers are going to suffer great damage owing to this pension scheme. I say, give such an individual a pension if it is necessary, but you must take some precaution or other in connection with it. The pension in the villages is larger than that on the farms, and the result is that those persons go to the villages. Something must be done. Then there is another matter which is mentioned in paragraph 344, and that is that better housing should be provided. This is one of the most important matters in order to improve the state of affairs, and it is to give better, housing for the coloured people on the farms. If the coloured man is given better housing on the farms than in the villages then he will not be inclined to leave and go to the village. I want to suggest that the sub-economic housing scheme, which we have in the villages, should also be given to the farmers to put up houses for their labourers. It has already been mentioned by other speakers that national roads are being built, and this causes a serious difficulty in regard to labour. Something is also recommended here, not by the commission, but in a minority report of the commission, which I consider very useful. It applies more particularly where natives or coloured people have worked for a certain time on a farm that they should be exempted from poll tax. If a native feels that he has to pay poll tax in a village or in a town which he would be exempted from on a farm, then that will definitely attract him to the farms, because if there is one thing that the native does not like paying it is the poll tax. With this I want to leave this matter, because there are probably other hon. members as well who want to bring the seriousness of the question of farm labour in their neighbourhood to the notice of the Government. I want to associate myself with the motion of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker). I said in the past, and I repeat it, that if there was ever a best way of giving assistance to farmers, then it was the Interest Subsidy Act. But nevertheless I can give you the assurance that it was possibly one of the most unfair Acts. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) knows the north-western areas well, and he will agree with me that during the years from 1925 to 1929 they had a boom period in thos parts, and fortunately or unfortunately it happened that there was a very serious drought prevailing in the North-West, and the result was that when land rose above the economic price value in the rest of the country, it did not rise in the same way in those parts, and land was comparatively cheap. Farmers bought land there at reasonable prices. But there was also another factor. The North-West was unknown, and that involved that land did not rise above the economic price. But what happened? Immediately after 1933, when the interest subsidy was stopped so far as future bonds were concerned, there was a normal rainfall. I might almost say that during the last six years the rainfall has been above normal. The North-West became better known, and farmers who had gone to live there made a success of farming. There was a great influx of farmers from other parts, and the price of land immediately rose, and now we find this strange position that if a farmer bought land in 1928, then he, to use an illustration, possibly paid 12s. 6d. a morgen, but after 1933, owing to the factors that I have mentioned, he was obliged to pay £1 5s. a morgen for that land. The farmer who bought at 12s. 6d. a morgen gets an interest subsidy, but the other farmer who paid £1 5s. does not get the subsidy. I think the Minister of Finance will agree with me that that is an unjust thing, and that an end should be put to it at once. The object, of course, is not to take the interest subsidy away from those who already get it, but rather to come to the assistance of the rest. That is the reason that we are moving that a commission of inquiry should be appointed, because such a commission will probably be able to suggest a solution. The last point that I want to stress refers to the Farmers’ Relief Act. You know that there have been many farmers who stood on their honour, and who thought that they would win through. They did not want to surrender their estates, and the creditors did not take any steps, because they thought that when times became more favourable then they might possibly, instead of having to accept 10s. in the £, get the full £. They hoped that better times would come after the drought and depression. These farmers were, however, pressed after 1935, and this is such an important point that I hope that the Government will pay attention to what is proposed here, and that they will come to our aid by extending that date after the 1st June, 1935, and that they will, if necessary, make it a permanent arrangement. When we consider history we know that in the old days in the North-West, when Upington wanted to enter into an agreement with the Hottentots about the purchase of land, they tried to get a provision inserted—they did not succeed in it—that the land of a coloured person could not be sold for debt. This law to which I referred fairly closely resembles that provision that a farmer’s land could not be sold for debt, and I think we should create such a state of affairs that the creditors will know that a farmer’s land ought not to be attached for debt. But let us grant the requests which are made in the motion, and we shall see that it will help tremendously to improve the state of the farmers. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Government to agree that an inquiry will be instituted into the position of the farming population, to rehabilitate the farmers and put them on a firm footing before the depression comes, which will inevitably come and ruin thousands and hundreds and make poor whites of them.

The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) has raised a very important question, and his seconder emphasised it. But it is not only an important question, it is also a very thorny, difficult and complicated question. We have this commission’s report. It is an excellent report which is full of useful information, but I fear that even if we find it necessary to put all the recommendations into operation, it will not even then solve the problem, because the bases of the problem lie in the fact that there is not sufficient manual labour in South Africa available to do our work. We are one of the few countries which are in the fortunate — I do not know whether I should say fortunate or unfortunate — position that there is more work than there are hands to do that work. Thanks to the unprecedented development of mining, the development of agriculture, the development of public works, and the development in industries, thanks to the making of national roads, the building of dams etc., there is an enormous demand for native and coloured labour. It is not only the farmers who are suffering in respect of this problem. My colleague the Minister of Mines, and I may say the whole Cabinet are very much worried about this shortage in native labour, and its remedy. The fact remains that South Africa has not sufficient native labour to do the work of South Africa. This is a terribly serious problem which deeply affects farming. When the Government appointed this special commission it did so because we realised the importance of this question, because we realised that farming was being injured. But I say nevertheless that even if all the recommendations of the commission were carried out, it would still not completely remedy the state of affairs. The hon. member spoke of natives who were vagrants in the villages. My information is that the number of vagrants is not so large as is being made out. What is more, my information is that, if we were to take the vagrants in Johannesburg and the other big towns and send them to the farms, then the farmers would be the first people to object to it. They constitute the criminal elements, and the farmers do not want them bn the farms. The hon. member also asked what had already been done, inasmuch as this report was published twelve months ago. In the first place, I may say that only last week I had a very important interview with the South African Agricultural Union. I had been corresponding with them and I saw them personally. In addition, I also entered into negotiations with the town councils of Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria, East London, Port Elizabeth, Germiston and the other towns on the Witwatersrand. I called their attention to the paragraphs in the report of the commission which dealt with the influx of natives into the towns and villages and asked them to co-operate with me. Besides the general state of affairs that there is not sufficient native labour in South Africa, we have two further points with regard to farm labour. The first is that undoubtedly in the case of the native, just as in the case of the white man, there is an urge to go to the towns. They think they are better off in the town, and the town is attractive to them. I agree with the hon. member that both white and black are making a great mistake. But there it is. The fact, remains that the native prefers to go to the town. In the long run he comes back poorer in spirit and in his pocket, but we cannot stop it. The other difficulty is this, and it is emphasised in this report, namely, that the farmers cannot possibly compete economically with the wages and attractive labour conditions, particularly those of the mines and of the towns and villages, and possibly also with the wages which the Government pay on public works. Now what is the solution? We cannot take the natives by the neck and tell them that they cannot go and work there? We can try to canalise it with the assistance of the town councils. It has also been suggested that the Government should control the labour bureaus. I do not know whether that is practical. The position is that the farmer simply cannot compete with the other bodies. Possibly I should say that the apparent wage which the farmers pay on the farms is less than the wage which the natives go and earn in the villages, and at other places. They are in many cases better off on the farms, but the natives do not realise it.

Cannot you give facilities in the form of low tariffs?

In what respect?

On the railways.

I cannot go into that. But how will my hon. friend make a distinction between young natives who go to work on farms, and those who travel for other purposes? I do not think that the Minister of Railways will be able to agree to it. We realise that there are difficulties, and that the position is a hard one, and we are dealing with it. I do not want to make any promises which I might possibly be unable to carry out. As I say, this report is a very good one, and a useful one, and I appreciate the work done by the members. I do not blame them for it, but they have not offered a solution of the problem simply because possibly there is no solution, because the heart of the matter is that there is not sufficient manual labour in South Africa. We, as a Government, are trying to keep the balance even between the farmers and the other employers. We cannot curtail the supply to the mines and industries, we cannot stop the national roads or the building of irrigation dams. As I said, we are prepared to hold the balance even. It is easy to talk about this matter, but it is difficult to do anything in practice. We are engaged in putting into operation a few of the recommendations. One, for instance, is this, where a native gets into arrears with his poll tax we have asked the native commissioners and magistrates not just to put those natives into gaol, but to place them with farmers on the farms, so that they can get the opportunity to earn the arrear money. That is one of the methods. But I repeat that even all the recommendations of the commission will not solve the problem. As far as it is possible we carry out those recommendations. The hon. member complained that we promised to issue instructions in connection with the released areas. My predecessor issued very strong instructions.

I am afraid that those instructions will not be carried out.

That would be a pity. I have in some cases received complaints, but I believe that the instructions are not being evaded on a large scale. I think that these are only exceptional cases.

What about the proclamation of Chapter 4 of the Native Act?

I want to live a few more years and not to be shot before my time. Lydenburg was the only place where it was applied, and we know what hapenped there. I doubt whether the population of our country will agree to the application of that measure.

By applying it locally you get difficulties, but if it applied throughout the country it will give satisfaction.

I would like to see the result of a referendum to test the feeling of South Africa. It would facilitate the work of the department very much if it could be applied throughout South Africa, but I still have to learn that the public of South Africa want it. The hon. member also spoke about separate recruiting areas. I will go into that, but I also doubt whether it will be practicable, and whether you can say that in the one area only the natives may go to the farms to work, and in another area to the mines. Would a system like that be possible?

There should be a better system of distribution.

It sounds very well in theory, but how are you going to carry it out in practice? If a native says that he does not want to go and work on a farm, but on the mines, are we going to force him to work on a farm? In any case we are dealing with the problem. We admit that there is friction, and we are negotiating with the municipalities and the railways. The railways now have a system of not employing natives who are required on farms. I hope, that the position will gradually improve, but I cannot promise that we shall be able to solve the whole question for the countryside and for the mines, and for the other employers, because the root of the evil lies in the lack of sufficient natives. Other points have been mentioned, such as sub-economic housing, etc. They are points which I will go into. With regard to the question of abandoning the poll tax, I think that that would be very difficult. How can we discriminate and exempt one native because he works with a farmer, and make another native pay who works with another man? I do not think that that would be a very fair system. In any case I am grateful to the hon. member for Delarey and his seconder, for having raised this important matter. I can only give them the assurance that we are engaged in carrying out a number of the recommendations of the commission. I am in close touch with the different bodies, especially the big municipalities and the South African Agricultural Union, and I hope that if we are not able to solve the problem completely in course of time, we shall in any case be able to effect an improvement.

I have listened with close attention to the speeches of the hon. the mover of the motion and the hon. the movers of the amendments on the Order Paper, and to the speech of the hon. the Minister, which has just followed. I may say that I am glad of the opportunity to be able to express some of my own views in connection with the matter, which I know is of fundamental importance to the country. At the beginning, I may say that I appreciate very much the invitation which, I think, has been made, both directly and indirectly, by the hon. members who have moved the amendments, to us to take part in this debate and it is encouraged by that invitation that I take this opportunity to express my views. I think that invitation shows that what we had hoped would one day come to pass in this House, has come to pass, namely, that the farmers are beginning to see that we are not here in any spirit of hostility to the farmers. We are not unconscious of the farmers’ difficulties, and we are not here to place the interests of one section of the community against another section. We are seriously concerned for the future welfare of the country, and for the future peace of this country, which can only be achieved by a balance of each section of the community in relation to the other. Now I listened with the greatest care to the proposals which the hon. the movers of these amendments brought forward to relieve the difficulty in which they are at present placed, by the obvious and admitted shortage of farm labour. As I understood them, they were mainly these. Emphasis was laid upon the fact that it was not proposed to ask the Government for any sort of restrictive legislation to increase the controls, the legislative controls, which operate in respect of our native population, and that some solution must be sought along other lines. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne), I think, proposed that an effort should be made to open again channels of farm labour by enabling the farmers to recruit labour from the present reservoirs of native labour in this country, the Transkei, Zoutpansberg and elsewhere, where there are large native reserves, and that that recruitment should take the form of the encouragement of the younger members of the native population to seek employment with the farmers on some sort of an apprenticeship basis, under which they would become efficient farmers, and in due course provide the farmers not only with labour, but with skilled farm labour. The other proposal he made was that the towns should be closed to native immigrants, the younger native immigrants, and to the movement of the younger people. I gather, also, that he was anxious that any surplus labour in the towns should be drafted from the towns back into the rural areas, or into the rural areas, as a source of farm labour. Those were the proposals put forward by the mover of the amendment to increase the supply of farm labour. The hon. member was supported by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) who added the suggestion that the Government should assist the farmers to make conditions on the farms more attractive by better housing for farm servants. In addition to these proposals, the hon. the Minister, I think, suggested that the farmers might find a little relief from their present difficulties by the use of the unfortuante native tax defaulters who might be drafted to the farms for the period of their service, and that the towns might help to co-operate with the department in keeping out the native labour they do not want, and pushing off unemployed natives, that they can dispense with to the rural districts. Also, he referred to an instruction to the magistrates not to encourage the movement of farm labourers by giving them passes to seek work in the towns as another possible contribution to the relief of the pressure which now exists. Personally, I do not think that these proposals will solve the farmers’ difficulties. There is one exception to that, namely, the proposal for better housing on the farms, which stands in a category by itself. All the other suggestions, I might point out, have been tried over and over again. They are proposals along lines that are all too familiar in this country, and their nett result is that the demand for farm labour is to-day more acute than it was ever before. I suggest that, in actual fact, there is no chance of solving the farm labour difficulty along such lines. Indeed, the only result of these methods can be to aggravate the friction which already exists between the farming community and the native population. Now I want to put forward certain facts which, I think, it would be valuable to this House to face now before that friction gets any more acute, and before we make any further movement along these old lines. I think it is time that we faced the actual implication of the farm labour situation. The hon. the Minister, I believe, put his finger on the sore snot, on the central feature of the position, that is that in actual fact there is not enough labour in this country to go round. We have got to the point where the competition between all our interests is now so great that they cannot all be supplied on the old basis of organisations of this country. I was only disappointed that the Minister went on to repeat some of the old suggestions for alleviating the difficulty, and did not do what I think is the only thing to do in this country, to suggest that the time has come for us to face up to the necessity for a general reorganisation of our economic life in this country, to meet the changing conditions in regard to native labour. I believe the shortage of native labour is now a permanent feature of our national life. Actually I may say that I regard it as the growing pains of a possibly better society than we have yet realised in this country. I believe the progress of this country necessitates a growing shortage of native labour, based upon the rising standard of native living, and that the country, if it is going to progress further, must adjust itself to that change. I believe, as a matter of fact, that that change might have come, and should have come, quite a long time ago. It has, in fact, been delayed by artificial means, and it has been dangerously delayed by artificial means. It has been delayed, for instance, by our land policy, by the passing of the 1913 Land Act, which drove the Cape natives off the land as tenants and restricted access to the land in the other provinces, which has made it possible for the farmers to carry on their farming with labour regulated on terms that really belong to the eighteenth century, and not to the twentieth century at all. But now we have got to the point where the native people have adjusted themselves to their exclusion from the land; that is the results of this 1913 Land Act in making available supplies of labour which have exhausted themselves. There was, however, a subsidiary factor operating to delay the growth of a labour shortage. This was the operation of outside recruiting. We have recruited labour at intervals from outside both for our mines and for our farms. But this also is coming to an end. I would draw the attention of those who have read the Farm Labour Commission’s report, to the fact that the Farm Labour Commission shows that the outside sources of labour have now dried up. Let me refer them to the significant remark of the commission, that today labourers are not coming in from Bechuanaland, from Basutoland or from Swaziland, as in the past, and that that avenue, or source of supply, has dried up. So we cannot look forward to continuing to recruit our labour supplies from outside sources. In any case, the development of the native territories which is implied in the recent statement of British colonial policy, means that the native people are going to stay at home. Here, then, we have the passing of two factors which in the past have operated to provide cheap labour for the development of the natural resources of this country. You have now no hope of getting enough labour from outside to modify the growing stresses of the situation in any real way and our native population has adjusted itself to the fact that it has not that free access to the land that would keep it attached thereto. I personally think that in the long run the farmers made the greatest mistake of their lives when they supported the 1913 Land Act, because if they had not cut the native population off from free access to the land, we should have had established in this country a native peasantry which would supply the farmer with labour during his peak periods. The farmer cannot afford to keep enough labour on his land all the year round in order to supply the quantity he requires during the peak periods, but since the native has nowhere else in the countryside to live, he finds that he cannot get the labour he wants when he wants it. These are facts which we simply have to face. The industrial development of this country makes such demands on our native population that it can no longer satisfy them all. We seem to have the idea that South Africa has a large native population. It has not a large native population. Africa is not a heavily populated country as many of the Eastern countries are, it is a sparsely populated country and it cannot supply all the labour which industry and agriculture require so long as our economic life is organised on the basis of cheap labour. My own feeling in the matter is that there is only one thing to do, namely, to begin to reorganise our economic life so as to change this reliance on cheap native labour. For that reason I am disappointed with the proposals put forward in connection with this motion. I would willingly support a reorganisation of farming methods, although it would mean a considerable burden being thrown on the taxpayers of the country. If the farmers had come along and said they were asking the Government to help them either financially or by advice in the direction of better methods, I would support them up to the hilt. If they had simply said to the Government, help us to mechanise and to organise our farming operations with a view to less dependence on fading labour supplies, and give us the money to do it with, I would have been prepared to support that. I think it would involve a far better and a far sounder proposition than a great many of the steps in the way of financial assistance to farmers that we have hitherto adopted. Even a proposal by the farmers for a subsidy to pay better wages to the natives in order to help them to compete with other industries, I would have supported. I know the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) is perfectly right when he says that the townspeople would only then put up their wages as they must have the labour. I know that. But subsidisation of farm wages would give the farmers time to reorganise and the general rise in wages that it would induce would help us to develop our local markets in this country which are essential to the security of the farming community. And in any case, we must go in for some constructive policy which will reduce our dependence on human labour. The farmers must lose in competition with the other economic interests in this country. Even to-day the towns can spare no labour for the country. Industry and commerce demand a floating element of unemployed in our towns.

Why must they?

I don’t say it is a good thing but it is a question of fact. That is the way our present system works. Commerce and industry demand a floating element of unemployed. But in any case, industry can never say at any moment what its demand for labour is going to be; it cannot tie itself down to any limit. Now I will support any proposal for assistance towards better housing on the farms, to build schools on the farms, and anything that will in actual fact better the conditions of farm labour and help the farmers to attract labour to the farm; for those things are necessary in any labour the farmers employ. But I would earnestly ask the hon. members who brought forward this motion to reconsider the whole position and to consider whether I am not right in saying that the salvation of the farmers lies in re-organising their methods so as to economise in the matter of native labour. Only in that way will they be able to maintain or strengthen their position.

I would like, with the approval of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) to move a further amendment to his motion, namely—

I did not have very much time recently when I brought the economic motion before the House, but I briefly explained to the House the great problems of the farming community, and that they should be tackled immediately. The whole position of the farmers must be reviewed. I therefore fully support the motion of the hon. member tor Cradock. It is necessary to tackle the matter, because the position of this less- privileged section of the population is parlous, and draws them from time to time to the towns, with the result that great troubles arise in the towns. Then again there are more people who are not suitable to town life. They have not been brought up to life in the towns, they become impoverished and degenerate. I think that we are all fortunate in being able to debate this big subject impartially. It is a serious matter, and I would like to point out that the farmers represent the biggest asset in our country. I want to point out that the money which is being spent on farming is estimated to be as follows. The value of the land constituting the farms, is valued at £330,000,000, other assets, stock etc., £107,000,000; implements and farm transport vehicles, £120,000,000; amounting to the large round sum of £457,000,000. It is very clear from the report, of the Secretary of Agriculture, which deals fully with all these matters, that the farming industry is the biggest asset in the country, and we should enquire what can be done for the farmers. During a war we must also look behind the lines, and we must provide food. Therefore I think that the motion of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) is very necessary, and I want to point out that the agricultural production of the chief agricultural produce from 1933 to 1936 amounted to £56,000,000. That shows what large problems are created by that colossal sum which is brought into circulation. The amendment which I have moved is intended that other matters, which are mentioned in it, should also be borne, in mind by the commission during their enquiry, because they are very necessary.

I would like to second the amendment of the hon. member for Aliwal (Cant. G. H. F. Strydom) and also to support the original motion, as well as the addendum of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne). With regard to farm labour, I just want to suggest for the Minister’s consideration, that he should e.g. make a distinction between natives on the farms and natives in the villages in regard to poll tax. You find farms to-day where there are coloured people and natives working, and there the coloured people do not pay poll tax, but the natives do. I think it would be a good step to make a difference between the natives on the farms and the natives in the villages. Then it has been mentioned that it should not be permissible for natives unnecessarily to go to the towns, not only to the towns, but also to the small villages where they create great difficulties. A mayor in a small village recently had an enquiry instituted, and it appeared that in that village, which only had a white population of about 700, there were 350 natives, squatting. It is very difficult for a small village to tackle the question, and I think that the Government should take steps to prevent more natives going to the villages, and that the squatters should be driven out to go and work on the farms. With regard to the original motion, we make no apology for bringing it forward here. A few days ago reference was made to the 500.000 poor whites in our country. I do not think that that is such a large number, but there are many more of them than what there ought, to be, and do you know, that they have all come from the farming class, that they were all originally engaged in farm work. But conditions became so bad that they were driven from the land and they have to live in the villages to-day, and find living in a way that they have not been trained for.

I say that we make no apology for introducing this motion. Assistance must be given to-day to the farming community. It is done on a much larger scale and proportion in other countries than in South Africa. We find that in America the same difficulty arises, of keeping the farmers on the land, and also to enable them to keep their heads above water. It is a great pleasure to me that this motion is being debated in the spirit that it has. Let us discuss our troubles without dragging any party politics into them. I am glad that the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) opposite has shown the same spirit. It will possibly be said to us: But what are you complaining about? The farming produce is exhausted in most cases, and they will point out that the price of wool to-day is better than last year. But then we must not forget that in 1938 we had a reduction in the clip of wool of about £8,000,000, according to the report of the Secretary for Agriculture, and he ought to know, and probably does know what the position is. We therefore have a great deal to make up, and seeing that the farmers have got into this position, we are quite entitled to come and ask the Government to intervene in their interests. That is not all, we have passed through the depression, and that leads me to say something in connection with the Farmers’ Relief Act. The Farmers’ Relief Board is one in which the farmers have confidence, and if they had only had the opportunity, then they would have given the farmers more assistance, but their hands were tied. They could not go further than 1935. When we brought a deserving case before them, we saw that they were very keen on assisting, but that their hands simply were tied. I think that we ought to give them a free hand in that respect. I have already shown that the farmers in one year lost £8,000,000 on their wool in comparison with the previous year, and I think that that will at once show hon. members that our farmers got into the same position as they were in in 1932. The only difference is this, that 1932 was preceded by a boom period, and the people possibly paid too high prices for their land, and they got caught. But in the case of 1938, when the low price of wool came, they landed in that position without there having been a preceding boom period. Unfortunately, farming is a gamble. We cannot get away from it. Even the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) by his motion which came before the House, will not be able to stop that gambling. We must go on with it. It is a gamble, and we find today that some of our best farmers have been caught in consequence. When we have spoken here about people who have become poor whites because they were driven off the land, the position in many cases was that they were people who were not in a very good financial position when they started. But nowadays we find that even some of our best farmers are caught, and that some of them are driven off the land. I do not want to say any more, because doubtless there are other hon. members who want to speak in the debate. I only want to express the hope that we will continue in the spirit which has now been created in the House. I notice that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) is smiling. I hope he will not allow a discordant note to be heard. We are moving this motion with all honesty and frankness, and I hope that the Government will give its serious attention to the matter, and assist us as much as possible.

The motion of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) has opened the door for a general debate on agricultural affairs. The debate which we have had here is a debate which has anticipated the budget debate, so far as agriculture is concerned. Well, I want to confine myself more particularly to what actually appeared in the motion of the hon. member for Cradock, and especially in the last part of it. The motion of the hon. member consists, in the first place, of a preamble. That refers to the parlous economic position of the farmers. He then goes on to ask for two things: The extension of the application of certain legal provisions, and the appointment of a commission. I would have thought that the most important part of the hon. member’s motion was the request for the extension of certain legal provisions. He himself said something about it. But many of the other speakers, apart from those who referred to the scarcity of farm labour, did not actually get any further than the preamble of the motion. I am thinking, in the first place, of the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) and this also applies to the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker). They had very little to say about the continuation of certain legal provisions, but they made use of the opportunity to say something more of the parlous economic position of the farmers. What I should have liked to know is why we should just extend these legal provisions now, and to what extent that was going to assist in the solution of the general economic problem. To a great extent the speakers have neglected that aspect of the subject.

That is the work of the commission.

The commission takes second place. The first thing which is asked for is the extension of the application of these legal provisions.

As a temporary relief measure.

The hon. member for Cradock had something to say about it, but that was confined to him. I would have liked to know from the hon. members who supported him, and I mention by name the hon. member for Weenen, why we should not extend the application of these legal provisions, which would thereby be obtained, and how that was going to solve the problems of the farmer.

On a point of explanation, we made it very clear that it should only be a temporary measure until such time as the report of the commission came out.

I say again that my hon. friends said very little to indicate what the effect would be of a continuation of the application of these legal clauses, and how they would assist in solving the problem of the farmers. I think that it is desirable for me more particularly to apply myself to discuss this part of the motion. The hon. member for Cradock asked for steps to be taken to extend the application of certain legal provisions. The first is the Farm Mortgage Interest Act. That could, of course, be interpreted in two ways. The Act on farm mortgage interest was in two respects, of a temporary nature: It only applied to farm mortgages which were passed before 1933, and the relief that was given was only for one year. The relief was continued from year to year, and there is already on the Order Paper a motion which I have given notice of, to continue this relief further. But that is not what my hon. friend intended. What he intends is that the application of the legislation should be continued in a different sense, in other words, that it should also be made applicable to bonds which were passed after 1933. In the second place he asks that Section 29 of the Finance Act of 1933 shall also be made to apply to mortgages which were entered into after that period. The intention of the third part of the motion apparently is that the financial provisions of the Farmers’ Relief Act shall be made to apply to debts after the 1st July, 1935. My hon. friend knows very well that the other provisions do actually apply to debts in general. But in so far as the State has been placed in a position to assist the farmers with reference to their mortgage debt, that Act has only been made applicable to debts which were entered into before that date. In addition, the Act applies generally. I think I have correctly described what my hon. friend actually expects from that part of his motion. I think that in order to be able to regard this matter in its right perspective we must go back and ask ourselves why Parliament passed these legal proceedings to which my hon. friend referred. What were the circumstances which made the passing of these legal provisions necessary? And then we must enquire what the circumstances were which now cause the extension of their application. We know that during the last World War there was a general rise in the level of the prices of agricultural produce. In consequence of that a great deal of land was bought and the prices went up, with the result that the price of land and the mortgage burdens generally rose. That increased price of agricultural produce continued to last for quite a number of years.

Up to 1929.

Yes, and then it commenced to break. Prices then started to become less, and prices which were then regarded as normal prices could no longer be obtained. The farmer could no longer get those prices, but he was nevertheless left with the high mortgage debt which had been assumed on the basis of the higher level of prices for agricultural produce. The result of that was that the agricultural industry was capitalised far too high. It was therefore necessary to take steps which would be calculated to allow the agricultural industry to adapt itself to the reduced price level. The mortgage burdens which were assumed on the basis of the higher level of prices for agricultural produce simply became intolerable, and to save the farming community from ruin it became necessary to assist the farmers in connection with their accommodation to the changed circumstances. The first step which was taken in that direction was the Farm Mortgage Interest Act of 1933, which was passed by Parliament. The object of that was the reduction of the burden of interest of the farmer. The capital burden remained unaltered. The object was to reduce the interest burden on the farmer. In those years the average rate of interest on farm mortgages was, let us say, 6 per cent. The effect of that Act was that that was brought down to 3½ per cent. The rate of interest was reduced by 40 per cent., and that was done by that Act of 1933. Then we come to the second step that was taken, namely the passing of Section 2 of Act No. 29 of 1933. It was, of course, to be expected all the mortgagees would not be satisfied with the reduction of the rate of interest, and to make provision for that the Land Bank was authorised to take over, on behalf of the Government, mortgages in that kind of case, without the usual Land Bank restriction of 60 per cent. This measure was, of course, complementary to the Farm Mortgage Interest Act, and for that reason this provision, just like the Farm Mortgage Interest Act, was restricted to bonds that were passed before 1933. In other words, because these means were intended to assist the farmers to reduce their burden of interest in connection with mortgages that were entered into on the basis of the higher price level of agricultural produce, that restriction was included.

But we also have those conditions now.

I will come to the present conditions. This legal provision, therefore, only assisted the farmer with the reduction of his interest burden. The original burden of debt, the capital burden, remained unaltered. The capital debt continued, and for that reason the House proceeded to pass the Farmers’ Relief Act of 1935. The main object of that Act was, as we know, to make it possible for the farmer’s mortgage debt which was entered into during the ante-depression period, to be brought down mainly by means of a compromise with his creditors and the intervention of the Government, to an amount which was in a reasonable proportion to the reduced level of prices for agricultural produce. That was the object of the Act of 1935, and in that way it was made possible to use public money for the taking over of mortgage debts, and for the purchase of portions of the land of debtors, and also for the provision of loans for stock and other agricultural necessities. The Act of 1935 dealt with precisely the same problem as the Act of 1933, namely, the question which arose in consequence of the high mortgage debts which rested on the farms as a result of the debts which they entered into in the ante-depression period. Farms were then bought and mortgages passed on the higher prices of agricultural produce, and the legislation of 1935, as well as that of 1933, dealt with the question of the ante-depression burden of debt. When he introduced the Bill of 1935, my predecessor, the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga), said very clearly that in so far as the Bill made provision for the supply of money by the state for the redemption of debt, it would only apply to debts which were entered into before the 1st June, 1935. He put the matter very clearly. What was intended chiefly was to solve the difficulties which arose in consequence of the lowering of the level of prices in 1930.

He followed a different policy in regard to the mines.

I am speaking about the agricultural policy which my predecessor followed. He put it very clearly in 1935 that in no case would public money be advanced to pay debts which were incurred after that date. I think that it was very clear that the means that were employed in 1933 and in 1935 were not intended to be means for parmanent application, but means to offer a solution of difficulties which had arisen in consequence of the drop in the price level. The motion which the hon. member for Cradock is now moving is a motion which has as its object the making of those means of permanent application.

No.

My hon. friend says “up to date,” and he knows very well that if that were to be done to-day there would be a similar motion passed again in five years. It practically amounts to this, that the means which are employed to solve a temporary problem now have to be made permanent, or in any case have to be extended, although we are not now faced with the same problem. My predecessor always objected to such a motion, and to the extension of the application of those measures. I am convinced of it, whatever hon. members behind him may say, that he is still prepared to-day to oppose such a motion. But before I go further I think I must quote a few figures to show what has been done under the Farmers’ Relief Act with regard to the supply of money to the farmers. Up to the present more than 17,708 rehabilitation loans have been granted, and the amount was £6,731,000. Then there were 31,500 tenant farmer advances given, and the amount involved was £1,864,000. The total amount is therefore £8,605,000 — that is since the Act of 1935 was put into force. One would think, in listening to some of the speeches, that nothing has been done for the rehabilitation of the farmers.

We are thankful.

I do not say that the hon. member for Cradock said that, but some of the speeches undoubtedly created the impression that we were doing nothing in South Africa. In other countries, so it is said, a great deal is being done, such as in Australia and America, but what about South Africa? I say that by this means alone in a period of four years, more than £8,500,000 has been spent on the rehabilitation of farmers. I stressed this point. Those three measures that I have mentioned, the three measures to which my hon. friend also has referred in the motion, were applied by Parliament to the solution of definite problems. Circumstances arose not only in South Africa, but throughout the whole of the world, where prices of agricultural produce dropped, and the mortgage debts became intolerable. In South Africa the price level of agricultural produce has, in some cases, dropped by 50 per cent. The mortgage burdens, during the same period remained the same. It was necessary to reduce the capital and interest burdens, and that was done along the lines I have indicated and successfully.

How were the capital burdens reduced?

In consequence of the application of the Farmers’ Relief Act. In many cases the capital burdens were reduced as a result of the Act. In the legislation we have, we have adequate means for taking action in regard to the difficulties that are left, difficulties that arose in consequence of the drop in the price of the agricultural produce in 1930. What is now wanted, therefore, is nothing but action by the state to reduce the burdens which farmers have themselves assumed, since the passing of that legislation. The first part of the motion has no other aim than the state assisting the position of the farmers in connection with the burdens which they took upon themselves after the passing of that legislation by Parliament. I would like to put two questions. What is the principle which lies at the root of the motion? The motion says that the legislation should be extended up to date, but why just up to this date?

Because the commission will indicate another way out.

But my hon. friend says “up to date.” The commission which will be appointed will probably sit quite a few years, but the motion says “up to date.” If this request is acceded to, it simply means that no similar request for the extension can be refused in future. In other words, it means that we are going to tell the farmers: “Go on incurring debts freely, whatever the circumstances may be, the state will assist you.” I am convinced of it that the farmers of South Africa still have some feeling of independence, and will reject the motion. The farmers in South Africa do not wish to be placed in that position. In the second place, I ask what the problem is which has to be solved. There was a certain problem which I described, and which my predecessor wanted to solve by the legislation of 1933 and 1935. Those Acts were undoubtedly effective measures for the solution of that problem, but what is the new problem which must be solved? It is no longer that problem of the drop in price by 50 per cent. In certain respects there was an increase in the level of prices of agricultural produce during recent years. I leave that out of account, but I want to say in passing to the hon. member for Wodehouse, that I never said that no increase would take place in the price of agricultural produce during the war. I only issued a warning against the raising of excessive expectations in that connection. There is, however, no drop in the level of the prices of agricultural produce. We have not got to deal with the same problem with which my predecessor had to deal six or seven years ago. The price of agricultural produce remained more or less constant right up to the outbreak of war, and what is now being asked for is practically that new mortgage debts incurred since 1933 by debtors, with full knowledge of the position under which the new burdens were being incurred, that so far as the new burdens were concerned, the state would have to assist on the same basis as when it came to their assistance in connection with the old debts of prior to 1933. I do not think that my hon. friend can tell me what the problem actually is which they want to solve by the motion. We can understand what the problem was which my predecessor wanted to solve, but what is the new problem which makes necessary the continuation of the application of those measures? On what grounds must the state now continue the extraordinary measures which were applied to solve that definite problem, which was the result of the drop in the level of prices of agricultural produce? The hon. member for Cradock quoted, figures, very striking figures, but those figures only serve as a justification of the policy of my predecessor in respect of the legislation of 1933 and 1935. The figures did not indicate a drop in the price level since 1933. Not at all. The figures indicated a drop in the price level from 1929 up to 1933, but not since 1933. Allow me to go a little further. What actually will the acceptance of this motion mean? Everyone knows that when he buys land and passes a mortgage bond, he will ultimately be assisted out of any difficulty that may arise out of it. Every bywoner, every lessee of land will be encouraged to buy land. The price of the land will affect him less, because in connection with the mortgage debt he will ultimately be assisted out of the difficulty by the state. Finally, there will be the Farmers’ Relief Board to assist him. The result will be a rise in the price of land, and increase in mortgage burdens, and ultimately an intolerable burden on the shoulders of the state. May I just point out that this motion is quite irreconcilable with the land settlement policy which we have always followed up to the present. The Department of Lands was established to assist persons who do not own land, to get hold of it. A certain procedure has been laid down. An inquiry takes place, and the object of the Department of Lands is to make sure that persons who buy land are doing so on a sound economic basis. By passing this motion we shall simply be rendering the work of the Department of Lands futile. We will simply be saying to that kind of person: “Just continue without reference to the Department of Lands, and buy your own land, pay what you like, obtain high bonds just as you wish, and ultimately the state will be there to assist you.”

What reflecion is this?

That is the ultimate effect of this motion. It cannot be otherwise but that this motion should have an effect like this. It means that for the future you can increase the debts as much as you like, the Government will help you out. I am sorry to say again that we are not prepared to introduce legislation to make the operation of that legislation permanent. We have always hitherto followed the policy of the previous Government, and I stand on the same footing as my predecessor.

But there is a war going on now.

We are prepared to assist the farmers, but on a sound basis. The farmers will not be left in the lurch, that hon. members can take from me, but the motion of the hon. member for Cradock is unsound, and I cannot make the promise that I will accept it. But now I nevertheless want to point out that it is not quite correct to say that the Farmers’ Relief Act of 1935 is of no use to the farmers who incurred debts since 1935.

We know that point.

The hon. member realises it well, but it is not so well appreciated by others. The Act of 1935 is actually valuable also in regard to the debts which were entered into after 1935. Under this Act it is possible to call a meeting of creditors in regard to those debts, and in many cases that meeting of creditors ends in a compromise being agreed upon. But where no compromise is agreed to, although the state is not able to advance the money to take over the debt, the state can, as a matter of fact, assist in a different way. As the Government has land available under the Farmers’ Relief Act, the Government can give such a farmer land, and the Government can also make stock available through the Farmers’ Relief Board.

We know that.

hon. members do not all know it, because this motion creates the impression that according to the administration of the Act of 1935 to-day, that Act is of no value in connection with debts incurred after 1935. The hon. member did not mean it, but the motion creates the impression. There is another thing to which it is necessary to refer. A provision is being made to which I have not yet referred. It is the system of suspension. In 1936 the Minister of Finance, with the help of Parliament, of course, made provision that we should suspend the interest on certain debts. That was done on a temporary basis in order to give relief from the payment of interest. It was on a temperorary basis, where a farmer was in temporary difficulties, but had a chance of winning through. In that case the payment of interest could be suspended for a time, and when the farmer was once more on his feet his position could be reconsidered. That suspension applies to the loans of 1931, under the Drought Emergency Relief Act, and that is also applicable to the so-called Section 20 loan. I want to give the figures here of the assistance which is given under this scheme. Up to the present there have been 1,085 cases where interest payments have been suspended, and the amount that was suspended, or rather written off, was £73,037. If the farmers have similar loans, and get into difficulties, we can apply the suspension system, and the Farmers’ Relief Board can, when the matter is brought up, go into it, where the difficulties are of a temporary nature, and the expectation is that the farmer will get on to his feet again. Then the interest payment can be temporarily, totally or partially suspended, until he is on his feet again. I think that hon. members will admit that that is a great concession. I have referred to the kind of loan to which the suspension system is applicable, and I intend to introduce a Bill which will extend this suspension system, which will make the suspension system applicable to farmers’ relief board loans, which come under the same class as the Section 20 loans. At the moment the suspension system is not applicable to the farmers’ relief board loans, and I therefore intend to extend the system to that type of loan. I think that if that is done we shall have the necessary machinery to assist the farmer who gets into temporary difficulties. If then a farmer is a debtor under the Acts that I have mentioned, then he can make an application for suspension. But if the creditor is a private individual, or the Land Bank otherwise than under Section 20, then the farmer can apply to the local farmers’ relief board, and then a recommendation can be made under the Act of 1935, and then once more a suspension can be given under that Act, where the circumstances would justify it. Therefore provision has actually been made for all cases.

What about the farmer who incurred his debts subsequently?

I must say again, the farmer who incurred debts after 1935 can, apart from the general assistance which is given him, not make a claim for suspension.

Is the Minister not prepared to consider extraordinary and deserving cases?

We know that it is very difficult to define extraordinary deserving cases. The only way to do it is by fixing a date, as we did in the application of the Act of 1935. I say again, that Act was passed in order to solve a specific problem, and there is no problem to-day such as there was in 1933. With regard to the loans which were entered into after 1935, the application of those laws is not justified. I just want to refer to one more point. The hon. member for Cradock also asked for the appointment of a commission. Now his proposal in that connection has been considerably extended by the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). Apparently the hon. member for Aliwal wishes for the appointment of what one could describe as a general agricultural commission, which could go into agricultural matters generally. I do not want to enter into that matter, it is a matter for my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. I just want to say this, in view of what has been said, that I cannot see the necessity for the appointment of such a commission. We are in full possession of the facts, we know what the policy is, we have the farmers’ relief board. Hon. members have referred here, with the greatest of praise, to the farmers’ relief board. Well, it is a permanent committee which can give us advice and counsel.

They are bound by the Act.

But they can at any time recommend that the Act should be amended. They are there as a permanent committee, and I want to say that I attach the greatest possible value to the advice of that relief board. Apart from that, you have your farmers’ relief committees, you have 700 practical farmers who are serving on those committees.

Has the relief board not yet made any such recommendations for amendment?

Not so far as I know. Whether they made any such recommendations to my predecessor I dot not know, but the board has not made any such recommendations to me. I say again, we have 700 practical and active farmers on those local committees, and with regard to the practical difficulties of the farmers, the necessary machinery is already in existence. A commission which would take two years to go into the matter would merely mean postponing things indefinitely. In the meanwhile we have the machinery, and so far as I am concerned I cannot see what the object of the appointment of such a commission would be. With regard to the appointment of a general commission to go into the question of general agricultural affairs, I must leave that to the judgment of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture.

I did not intend to take part in this debate, and I hope to say something at a later time about certain aspects of the farming problem. I just want to stress a few points now in connection with the debate which has been going on this afternoon. The Minister of Finance again and again referred to the policy which was laid down by Parliament on my advice in connection with this farming problem. He rightly pointed out that the basis of all the legislation referred to, which was proposed by me and passed by Parliament, was the conditions which arose in consequence of the collapse of prices caused by the world depression which prevailed after 1929. We had to take drastic steps, and great burdens were put on the state to try to prevent a wholesale collapse of the farming industry in South Africa taking place. No Government could indifferently see such a thing happening in our country with the social and economic consequences that it would involve. That justified the legislation referred to. But we all had to admit that it was not legislation that we would be able to apply permanently to the difficulties of the farmers which arose from time to time. That we, as ’n government, ourselves felt. Those drastic steps were justifiable owing to the emergency conditions we had to deal with. But why I have risen this afternoon is to stress something, and my hon. friends in this House will remember that while I, from time to time, referred to the fact that we were dealing here with a special problem, I always laid much emphasis on something else, and that was that we could only hope to get a permanent improvement if we could succeed in putting the price of farming produce up. That is where the solution lay. We felt that these measures were temporary. They did not deal with the general position, but we applied ourselves in conformity with the policy in England as declared by Mr. Chamberlain at Ottawa, that all the countries in the world should lay themselves out to obtain an increase in the price of primary produce. That was for years the special policy in England and in many countries. The great problem was this, that we could only hope to give relief to the farmers, not only in South Africa but throughout the whole world, that we could only let them see a ray of light if we succeeded in raising the price level of primary produce. I want this afternoon to point out a phenomenon in our country about which considerable confusion has arisen, and out of which misunderstandings have come about, and that is namely, that from time to time if we succeed in increasing the inland price at all for certain produce, then we got from the press and from the townspeople, complaints that the price is becoming too high and that the consumer is paying too much. I want to protest against that tendency to try and keep the price of farming produce on the depression level. That is what those people want to do. They have got accustomed to the depression prices of 1929 to 1932, and they want to retain those prices. Every time there is an improvement which the Government wants to see—then a shout is raised. That is unfair, and I want to make an appeal to the consumers of the country not to grudge the farmers a reasonable price for agricultural produce. They have not got that reasonable price. I gave figures to this House last year from which it clearly appears that in almost all cases the price of farming produce is still below the 1929 level, and we will not put the matter right before we succeed in providing a reasonable price for farm produce. That is the problem of my hon. friend, and it is the problem of the Minister of Agriculture. I am a little concerned when I see that in consequence of these protests of the consumers, there has been a tendency on the part of the boards of control—and we find that it is a very strong tendency—to keep the price level as closely as possible to the depression level. There is no attempt to see that a level of prices will be obtained for the primary produce, which is closer, when we take into consideration the increased cost of production, to a price which will assist the farmers, not only to make a reasonable living, but which will also assist them gradually to get out of the difficulties which they have got into since 1929. I say again that when we put those great burdens on the public we realised that it was no solution of the problem, but it was our object to keep the farmers on the land pending the improvement of their position through the increase in the prices. When I was attacked by hon. members on this side about the non-success of the steps which we took, I only made claim to this, that we had succeeded in keeping the farmers on the land, and seeing that they did not go bankrupt. We prevented a wholesale slump taking place. But that is not all that was necessary. I think that we all realised that something more should come about. We should try to create conditions in the country which would be of a more permanent nature, and I said that that would have to come by means of an improvement in the price level. When we come to the price level then there are two things which we must bear in mind. The first is the inland price, where our farmers are protected by the customs tariff, and where we are trying to improve the position by means of the control boards. Here our control boards should take up an attitude a little more reasonable, and the consumers should also take up a reasonable attitude, so that we can obtain a price level for primary produce which is more in conformity with the needs of our farmers. When we come to export produce, then my hon. friends in this House know that I have always said that in the long run an export subsidy was unsound. We paid export subsidies in the country, under specially difficult economic circumstances. I want to say here, and to refer to what the Minister of Agriculture said during last session when the prospects of the wool farmers were debated here, namely, when he said that if there were not an improvement in the prices, then he and his Government would be obliged to do something. We prepared ourselves for that. Fortunately, it was prevented by the improvement in prices which took place. Wool is a product upon which so much depends in our country. In the year when the wool farmer gets a good price, the difficulties of my hon. friend will be far fewer. Here again I want to issue a warning against the view that all is satisfactory now with the wool farmer. The price is not yet at the level we are entitled to, if we want to see an improvement of the position. We notice that the wool farmers of Australia also feel it. I hope that my hon. friend and his Government will do everything, even although we think that it is fair that the belligerent countries should exercise a certain amount of control over the level of prices, and it is not fair to expect that the extraordinary prices will prevail again which prevailed during the previous war, that it will nevertheless be necessary for the Government, in cases where all the prices are controlled, to insist continuously on the point that the controlled price should not be on such a level that the primary producer cannot get out of his troubles. With regard to this matter I would like, later on, to say something about wool. On this occasion I only want to emphasise a few points. I do not believe that the salvation of the farmers lies in the direction of making emergency measures which may be necessary from time to time, permanent. Before we can say that we have done anything to get rid of the difficulties, we must first succeed in obtaining a better level of prices for the farmers in our country. I do not want to go into the matter any further, and I only wanted to express these few ideas.

Before I move the adjournment of the debate I just want to say a few words. I listened attentively to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) and I was reminded of the days when he came back from the Ottawa Conference. Now he is talking of everything which should be done to increase the price of primary produce, but when he came back from Ottawa he told the first congress of the farmers that the Government had already done what it could; that the farmers had taken the responsibilities upon themselves; they knew what they were doing; that they would have to pay and that the Government could no nothing. It is very easy for him now that he is a member of the Opposition to try and drive a wedge between the primary producers and the consumers. My hon. friends opposite can go on whistling and saying what they like, I will have my say. I spoke to that Minister in 1930, and I suggested measures to him in order to keep the farmers on their land, inter alia, by means of a reduction of interest.

That was done.

Yes, but when? I suggested it in 1930. In 1932 I suggested a scheme to the Minister on the lines of the Farmers’ Relief Act.

You should have been Minister.

The hon. member for Fauresmith said that it was an uneconomic proposal. It needed a man like Mr. Tielman Roos, who sacrificed his appointment as a judge, to force that hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition to make a political peace in the country in order to save the farmer. I agree with the hon. member that the farmer has hot yet been saved. I also agree with him that we have succeeded in keeping the farmers on the land. We have ruined the farmers with party politics. They have been turned into the political football of professional politicians in South Africa. I do not want to go into these matters now. I move—

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—63:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander. M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—42:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Quinlan, S. C.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. H. Viljoen.

Motion accordingly agreed to; debate to be resumed on 15th March.

On the motion of the Minister of Native Affairs, the House adjourned at 6.5 p.m.