I move—

I move—

I do not think it necessary for me to give further reasons for this motion. We have already given the reasons every day, and objected against the manner in which we are being treated, as the Opposition. Therefore I move.

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—37:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Noes—79:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowker, T. B.

Bumside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis A.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson H. A.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr. Speaker before dealing with the subject matter on the Order Paper I want to refer to some remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) with reference to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture. He made some scathing references to his absence and implied that the Minister was guilty of discourtesy in not attending the House yesterday afternoon to listen to him. I would like to inform the member for Wolmaransstad that if he had made enquiries he would have found that the Minister was fulfilling an engagement entered into some months ago to open a Show in the constituency of one of his own followers.

You could have deputised for him so that he could attend.

I said he was attending a show meeting in a Nationalist constituency. If it is not a Nationalist constituency why is the hon. member sitting there? But I want to refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. The hon. member twitted the Minister and said that his speech was only worth that of a clerk in the Department of Agriculture. No doubt he speaks with authority, having been a Minister of that Department for ten years and having been treated as a clerk, but our Ministers are not treated as clerks and when they speak in this House they speak with authority. The hon. member also knows that whenever he has a bad case, when he has no reply to make, he becomes, personal. Now I want to deal chiefly with the speech made by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux), because he really attempted to put forward some case to implement the motion which has been placed on the Order Paper by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. May I say that it is somewhat unique, surely, for a member of this House to get up and make an apology for the speech of his leader and to explain that really the hon. Minister of Agriculture ought to have waited until some other members had spoken to show really what was meant by the motion before the House. Then the hon. member, having explained that, proceeded to say in effect: I will now present the case to the House. Can you imagine any member on this side of the House getting up after the Prime Minister has spoken and telling the House: Really that is not what he meant, but I will explain what he meant.

You did not read Hansard. You do not know what he said.

I know what he said. If any member will deny that that is what was done here I will withdraw. Now, he gave a statement. In the remarks he made he charged the Government on several points with regard to the food position in this country. He said that there was first of all not sufficient food, that production was not encouraged, that no steps were taken to obtain fertiliser, that food was going overseas in excessive quantities, that food in the country was going bad and was being wasted in camps and by reason of inadequate cold storages. I want to deal with some of these points because it so happens that from the very commencement of the war I have been fairly intimately associated with the efforts which the Government has made to provide adequate food supplies in the country. I will take him back to the days of 1940, when, as the result of convoys passing our shores, extra requirements for camps, extra requirements for the large armies winch were being raised in this country, it became apparent that we should have to watch very carefully the food supplies in the country and their production. The first thing that the Prime Minister did, was, in September, 1940, to appoint a small committee of which the Secretary for Agriculture was the chairman, to watch over the position and to see that adequate steps were taken to protect the interests of the country and also the interests of the producers. Well, during the following twelve months a very large increased demand was made on the country by reason of the R.A.F. personnel, the convoys passing our shores, and the armies being built up, which had to be fed, and reserves of food which were required to be sent up to feed our armies in the North; and it was at the end of 1941 that the Prime Minister, as the result of represenation and the views being put forward by the committee which had been appointed, determined to appoint a Food Controller, which he did in the person of the late Minister of Agriculture, Col. Collins. You will notice in the Gazette appointing that Food Controller the very steps which the hon. member for Oudtshoorn says should have been taken, were definitely put down as the essential thing which the Food Controller had to watch, namely to see that production was increased, that the interests of the producers were protected, that stocks were secured, and generally to watch over the interests of the people of this country and to see that as far as possible we will play the part which we were called upon to play. Now that continued for the whole of that year, and when the following year the Mediterranean was closed as the result of war action, and increased demand was put on this country to supply the navy, the convoys and the troops. I attempted on several occasions in 1940, 1941 and 1942 in this House to draw the attention of the House to the question of food supplies and to the serious position that might arise unless great care was taken, and I reminded the people of this country that it would only be by care that we could do this and I urged them to realise that it would only be by initiating a system of rationing that we would be able to go through and do our duty. What was the response I got? None at all. I was met from that side of the House with jeers that I did not know what I was talking about. Never once in all the six years when we were supplying food to the army and the navy, when we were carrying out the duties which had been placed on us, never once in all these years was an objection raised or a protest made from that side of the House against our carrying out our duties. They knew perfectly well that the farmers in this country were doing very well out of it. Let me say that the farmers in this country, for the most part, when called upon by the different organisations for increased production of food, responded quite well. That response enabled us to play the part we played and which I think was fully worthy of South Africa; and let me say that during the whole of the time—I remember that in the first years we were called upon to supply huge quantities of processed fruit, jams running into thousands of tons a year—in all those years we were able to get rid of our surplus and to help the farmers. Never then was the cry raised or the objection taken that we were denuding the country of food supplies. I say that it ill becomes the Opposition now, in the sixth year of the war, when everything is almost over, and victory appears very nigh, to come forward with charges like these, that we have neglected the interests of the country in the matter of food supplies and have neglected the interests of the country as a whole. Let me take the hon. members a little nearer to some of the definite charges that were made. Generally they make statements which cannot be challenged. The hon. member challenged this House on the position of fertiliser. Some of them said that the Government neglected their duty in not assisting the farmers in obtaining fertiliser. But what is the position?

The position is that you know very little about it.

That is what you say, but it is quite obvious that you know nothing about the facts. The Mediterranean was closed until the latter portion of 1943 and no shipping could pass through it. It was a closed sea as far as we were concerned. In the last year we, through the influence of the Prime Minister, obtained shipping to bring to this country nearly half of the annual requirements in raw materials for making fertiliser. We brought in sufficient to make 200,000 tons of fertiliser from Morocco and Egypt. That is the position. I say that when the members on the opposite side object to our sending food overseas, what right have they to ask the allies to spare shipping in order to send fertiliser to this country. I say that if it were not for the action of the Prime Minister we would not have been able to get the supplies we have obtained. Let me take another item. I come to the question of agricultural machinery. What is the position about that? The importation of farming implements in 1944 doubled itself When compared with that for 1943. In 1944 it included nearly l,000 tractors. We imported 15,000 tons as against 7,300 tons in 1943. The hon. Minister gave some figures as to the production of agricultural machinery and plants in Vereeniging where the Director of War Supplies has made available for the manufacture of machinery, huge quantities of steel for our requirements. I say that there again, far from any blame attaching to the Government, the Opposition ought to pass a vote of thanks for the work the Government did. In addition to agricultural machinery I find that during last year we imported 2,000 tons of galvanised barbed wire. What is that used for? Only for farmers.

That is only a drop in the ocean.

Of course it may be only a drop in the ocean but may I remind the hon. member that the bulk of the shipping of the world today is being devoted to war purposes, to carry troops and munitions to Europe and the Far East.

What was Iscor doing at that time?

Iscor was playing its part.

Exactly. Instead of making wire it was making war materials.

Apparently hon. members opposite begrudge any of our industries playing a part in the war. I say that these efforts, far from supporting the remarks of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn refute the charge he has made. Now, take this question of food going overseas. When the war broke out we were largely a surplus producing country in many products, like dairy products, butter and cheese, maize and fruit, and eggs. What happened? When the war broke out and practically all shipping was frozen, steps were taken by the Government to do everything they could do to dispose of these products of the farmers, and they were disposed of. They were disposed of on very favourable terms indeed. I remember in connection with war supplies the steps that were taken all the time to look after the interests of the farmers, and to see that whatever steps were taken, their interests were not prejudiced; and even from the beginning when convoys were being supplied with meat at exorbitant prices, this committee took steps to see that the meat was supplied at reasonable prices and that the farmers got fair prices for it.

What is a fair price?

At that time they were being supplied from the cold storages and the farmer did not get the benefit so the Department of Agriculture saw to it that they got a fair price. I want to refer also to one or two other matters in connection with this, and the Minister is today being blamed very much for the state of the meat position. Personally I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister of Agriculture in regard to the meat position.

I have sympathy for the consumer.

If anyone was faced with a difficult position it was the Minister of Agriculture. I remember that when the scheme was introduced. I think it was the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), who twitted the Opposition about it, and asked them what other scheme they would suggest. The objection then was to the question of price, I warned the House, in a speech I made in 1943, that we were heading for a shortage of supplies, that an increased price was coming, and that we would have very serious difficulties within the next year or two. The response was that the farming members laughed. All that I said has come true. There was an expert report available for the consideration of members at the time. What happens now? It is urged that a system of rationing should be adopted? I urge it also, and I am glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture is willing to consider it. I should like to know why, as a matter of fact, the scheme was not considered earlier. As far back as 1942, the Food Committee drew up a scheme of rationing to deal with this very problem which has arisen. The scheme then drawn up was very similar to the one now hinted at, the registration of the consumer in the retail shops, and that no-one should deal with two shops but only where he is registered. I say that the meat scheme was doomed from the time that it allowed 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of supplies to go free in the controlled areas. The only way to make this scheme a success is by complete rationing throughout the country, not only with regard to meat, but you are likely to have shortages with regard to butter and other dairy products also. I say that the sooner we face up to the prospect of creating an organisation that will deal fairly with everyone in this country and that will give everyone a fair ration supply, whether it is meat or any other commodity, the better it will be. The complaint today is that some people are favoured and get supplies while others do not. I have found that the public are quite content to go short as long as everyone is short, but they are not prepared to go short while one or two people are favoured and get large supplies. I would very seriously urge the Minister to put forward this scheme. I do not think it will take very long to put into effect. I am sure it will meet with the support of the bulk of the people in the country, and what is more, I am sure it will help this country to build up adequate food reserves, for the time is coming when we will be called upon to help other people in the world. Today you find references made to Australia and Great Britain. What is the position in Australia? Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand are all rationed right up to the hilt. They are rationed in meat, butter, tea and all the other necessities of life. They have cut down their supplies not because they did not have these supplies, but in order to build up reserves and to see how much they can send to the devastated countries of Europe. We have a lot to be proud of in this country but we will not be proud when we have to use meat sent from Australia which in the ordinary way would have been sent to the devastated countries. I think that if we adopt a strict rationing system and increase our reserve of food, we can build up ample supplies in the country and then the time will come when we will be able to send over these supplies to the European countries. We will be able to continue the part which South Africa has been playing in assisting Europe. As regards supplies our record stands very high and I would earnestly plead with the Minister to take such steps as are necessary to see that food reserves are built up in this country and to see that further steps are taken to stimulate production, and to protect the farmer in every possible way so that when the time comes when it is necessary for us to send supplies to devastated Europe we will be able to play our part.

If one listens to the hon. members on the other side, who are supposed to defend this Government on the matter of the chaotic condition into which the feeding of the nation has fallen, one begins to wonder, if all the wonderful deeds they have announced here as having been done were really done, what has happened to the food. The hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Pocock) told us about the gigantic attempts made by the Government and about the things they achieved. Other members on that side of the House who also participated in the debate also tried to make magic with figures, but the fact remains that nobody outside who wants food can obtain it. What has happened to the food? These wonderful amounts of fertiliser about which the hon. member spoke—I do not know whether he has ever before even seen fertiliser—if one goes to the farmers concerned who are supposed to have used it, one finds that they did not get it. What has happened to it? I have proofs with me to show how fertiliser was distributed by way of favours and gifts. But the fact remains that the farmer, especially in the Western Province, who needed fertiliser, did not get it. The hon. member spoke here about a quantity of barbed wire which was imported. I do not know whether he can mention one farmer to me who received some of that barbed wire. I know of no farmer who received galvanised barbed wire. I just know of a gigantic quantity of barbed wire that was used for the Cavalcade. But one can see with what contempt the Government of the day is treating the whole matter of food. Yesterday the strong man of the Government, the man who says that he is responsible for the food of the nation, went for a nice outing whilst this urgent problem, which falls under his department, was discussed. He knows it is being discussed again today, but his seat is empty again.

He is a busy man.

We do not know whether he is seeking another refuge, just as he had to run from his own allies at the gates yesterday. But the hon. member who just spoke told us here that a few years ago he made certain representations in the House, that he drew our attention to the serious circumstances that might apply in the country, but he says “I got no response”. That just shows how little his own side of the House thinks of him. They think so little of him that his own Minister of Agriculture does not even listen to his recommendations in this House. But the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, when he moved this motion, that the Government is on the defence. I can only see that this Government is busy defending against the process of disintegration in its own ranks. They cannot defend this position in which they landed the country. All that one receives from every speaker who has up to now participated in the debate, and who supports this Coalition Government, is this: each one without exception came here and found cause for complaint against the Government. Even the Minister of Agriculture confessed that many mistakes had been made, and all one heard except for a re-admission of all the mistakes which were made, is of course the usual smoke screens which were created and behind which they tried to hide their sins. Take, for example, the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) who spoke yesterday and was quite rightly referred to the incorrect facts he tried to lay before the House. His only contribution to the debate was that he didn’t agree with his own Minister. He also said: “I plead with the Government in again applying this subsidy of 7s. 6d. so that we can obtain supplies.” What does that mean? It simply means that even that hon. member admits that the price fixed by the Government is not correct, that it is too low. Therefore I say that as far as defence is concerned, you get absolutely nothing of that kind from the other side of the House, except for just a few wild shots. We do not expect that members on that side of the House will vote against the Government. We know them much too well for that and know that like tame sheep they will vote as and when the whip is cracked. But if we take in review the chaotic circumstances in which the food of the nation finds itself, then at least we expect that hon. members on the other side will take their courage in their hands and suggest what should be done to improve the position. But all they do is to get up and pat themselves on the shoulder and to pat the Minister of Agriculture on the shoulder, and the nation has to be satisfied with that. The smoke screens thrown up here will not give the nation food. If we take everything into consideration as far as the feeding of the nation is concerned, we cannot find words strong enough to express our disapproval of the planless and reckless action of this Government as regards the food question, the life of the nation of South Africa. We can almost say and we are inclined to say, that these actions of the Government border on intentionally starving the nation of South Africa in favour of other countries. Their reckless actions are perhaps due to a hopeless inability or far-reaching ignorance, or both. As long ago already as the beginning of 1942 we drew the attention of this House, of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, to the actual state of the nutrition of the nation. After we had pointed out to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister what the actual position was we put the question to him: Where does the Government get the moral right from to take what little we have in the country and to hand it to people whom it is not our duty to feed? And what was the reply of the Hon. the Prime Minister? “There is nothing to worry about. We are only giving away our surpluses.” Imagine hearing such language from a responsible person, from the Prime Minister, from somebody who at least ought to know what the actual position is with regard to the nutrition of the nation he rules. I will accept that the Hon. the Prime Minister probably well knew what the position was but that such matters just leave him cold, or that the Prime Minister was busy with his consideration of great matters and simply left things like the feeding of the nation to one of the most inefficient cabinets that South Africa has ever had. With what result? That today one finds dissatisfaction in every section of the community, a dissatisfaction that is capable of taking any form and which possibly may still become uncontrollable. What was the position with regard to the food of the nation before the Government started acting in all its foolishness in this connection? It is naturally not necessary to convince you or hon. members in this House that we had any surpluses in foodstuffs then or now. Every right thinking person with but a grain of intellect knows that the word “surplus” is nothing else but the cleverness of parasites, a word they create in order to make capital out of the producer and the consumer in a merciless way and to fill their pockets at the expense of the nation unconscientiously. I asked what the position of the country was as regards the most important foodstuffs. We have a population of approximately 10 millions whom we must feed. Let us take a few of the most important foodstuffs. Let us take milk. In the beginning of the war, shortly after the war began, in approximately 1941, we were able in South Africa to provide milk for 3,200,000 out of a population of 10 million, thus only to a third of the population of South Africa. Take cheese. We were able to supply only 1,200,000 out of the population of 10 million. Thus we needed 10 times as much here. Take butter. We were able to supply butter to only 3,500,000, also about one-third of the population. Take potatoes, which have a high nutritional value. We could supply only 2 million of the population with potatoes. Take meat, fish and eggs, foodstuffs high in protein value. There we could only supply 4,200,000 people. Bread we supplied to only 5 million and vegetables also to only 5 million.

Where did you find those figures?

As the result of scientific investigation about which the department concerned well knows, we came to the sobering conclusion that in South Africa we have sufficient supplies only of sugar, fresh and dried fruits and mealies, with a surplus only of sugar. Is that not an unsatisfactory position? In connection with that, let us see what the Government gave us further. Take the report of the Department of Public Health of 1939. From that report it appears that there were no less than 40.3 per cent. of children In the schools of South Africa, in that period, who were undernourished. That means that in South Africa we had in 1939 no less than 164,000 children who were undernourished. According to that report there are no less than 18,000 children who cannot afford to have lunch in South Africa. There are no less than 108,000, and almost 109,000, children who never receive any milk. That is what the Government gave us in its own reports. Is ask whether it is not an alarming situation when we find that 40 per cent. of our school children are undernourished. We ask ourselves the question: Did the Government not know about these conditions? Yes, it knew about them, but did it adopt forceful measures such as one would expect from any Government which pretends that it is looking after the interests of the nation, to stimulate production or at least to take the little we have and to distribute it evenly between all sections of the population? No, instead of that we had to learn of one of their most irresponsible acts, namely, that notwithstanding this critical position which I have just painted to the House, it still exported some of our essential foodstuffs, and it announces—I almost want to say that it has the temerity to announce—that it will during this year go so far as to export up to 85 per cent. of certain available foodstuffs. No, if there are people who must go hungry, let it rather be other people and not our own. But we see what the position was. We see how the position has become progressively worse. To this must be added that an abnormally large demand arose as the result, of the war. We know how food to the value of thousands of pounds was supplied to visiting convoys which touched at our ports. We know how our supplies dwindled faster and faster, and what did we see the other day when statistics were made available? We see that in one year, from December, 1943, to December, 1944, as far as concerns the supplies of butter, there was a decrease of no less than 55 per cent. Our cheese supplies decreased by not less than 12 per cent. Our bacon and ham supplies decreased by not less than 40 per cent. Our beef supplies decreased by not less than 43 per cent. and mutton by not less than 88 per cent. Eggs decreased by not less than 35 per cent. and wheat supplies by not less than 14 per cent. Notwithstanding this alarming situation the Minister tells us that this year he will export no less than 186,150,000 lbs. of foodstuffs, and he says that that is not all. He says: “I am in arrear with the orders of the Ministry of Food in Great Britain.” To this must still be added the 53 million lbs. which is in arrear. Thus altogether this Government this year still wants to export more than 239 million lbs. of foodstuffs during the present time of food scarcity in South Africa. One’s brain simply ceases to function when one thinks that one has a Government which pretends to have the interests of the nation of this country at heart, and which then proceeds in such a reckless way to play with the life of its own nation. But the most scandalous is still this, that the Government is trying to hide this alarming situation from the nation. Questions have been asked on this side of the House and the hon. Minister of Agriculture, who is probably out on a little jaunt on the sea and is not in his seat, was asked what the export figures are. He refused to reply, because this debate is still proceeding and the nation must not know it. While he was speaking he was asked by way of interjection to give us the figures, and he said: “I will come to it,” but he is still coming to it. No, we say they are intentionally busy hiding the true facts from the nation. We also see it in other respects. Was it not in October, that the Minister of Agriculture or the Government, summoned editors of newspapers which support them, to Pretoria at Government expense? And what did they tell these editors: “You must keep the nation outside quiet about the food position.” In other words, they had to hide the position. What did we find in the “Cape Times,” one of the newspapers supporting the Government, the other day after the amendment about the housing position had been moved by this side of the House? “Die Burger” carried a three-quarter column on the speech of the Minister of Demobilisation but what did we find in the “Cape Times” about the speech of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) who moved the amendment from this side? Nothing. That just shows how this Government and its press are busy trying to hide the actual position from the nation. The Minister of Agriculture is so little concerned about the food position that he does not think it worth the trouble to be in his seat this afternoon. When we wish to discuss this matter he is standing talking in the lobby; so little does he care for the interests of the nation for which he must make provision. But we know how they try to shift on to the shoulders of others this unscrupulous and scandalous action of theirs. When the nation started becoming rebellious about the food crisis we heard from the Government that unfortunately it had now rained too much. Then again we heard that it had rained too little. Then the Government again said it is the Nationalists who are trying to wreck their schemes. Then the Minister of Finance also wishes to put his penny in the poor box and said: “The farmers are afraid of the income tax; as soon as the end of June is passed they will send cattle to market again.” No, all these excuses of theirs disappeared like dew in the morning sunlight. But if we have to judge according to the Speech from the Throne and from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, It appears that they have temporarily been provided with a fig leaf with which to hide their administrative nakedness, namely in the form of a drought. Just imagine, the other day the hon. Minister asked the Hon. Leader of the Opposition: “But are you not acquainted with circumstances in South Africa? Do you not know that there are periodical droughts?” Yes, we are acquainted with circumstances in South Africa, but we could ask the Minister of Agriculture: “Are you such a stranger in South Africa that you do not know that when it rains it does not rain food?” Just imagine, in the Speech from the Throne it was announced that if it rained within the following two or three months the food position of the nation would be healthy. That statement was made at a time when the wheat crop was practically completely harvested, when the Wheat Board expected only 25 per cent. of the crop, at a time when it appeared that the potato crop was already a failure and at a time when we were faced, as regards mealies, with the largest shortage South Africa has ever known; and with all this there was also a failure of all dairy products. No, the Government must not stare at one tree and miss sight of the whole wood. It is not right to lay the blame on others and on circumstances. He himself is the guilty person, and if the Government does not know it, par excellence the scapegoat is the Minister of Agriculture with the inefficient controllers that he has at present. Notwithstanding the unsatisfactory position in which the country finds itself, the Government hides itself behind the parasitical cloak of a surplus, and continues to export our most important foodstuffs. Why? Simply because it is ignorant of our present circumstances but enters into large responsibilities overseas. I wish to ask the Minister a question, if he had had the courtesy to be present in this House when we discuss matters affecting his Department: “Did he enter into those commitments at a fixed price? Is not that the reason why the price to the producer must be kept down? I say that is the reckless manner in which the Government acted with regard to the interests of the country. It did not make the least attempt to increase production in the country. It did not make the least attempt to store food for a day of need. The Government is always so willing in South Africa to adopt the example of England, but unfortunately in this case the Government did not do so. I wish to go further: The Minister of Agriculture had a lot to say about the success of his meat scheme. We have already heard from the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) that he does not agree with the Minister. We on this side of the House say that as long as the Government persists in applying its meat scheme in the way it is doing today, as long as the Minister persists in accepting the existing basis of profit, which exists between producer and consumer, as the correct basis of profit, we warn him that his scheme will be a failure. The hon. Minister was present at the Farmers’ Congress in the Free State. Certain figures were submitted to him there. It was pointed out to him that there were certain business houses who did a flourishing trade on a margin of profit of 20 per cent. He was invited to inspect the books, but here he comes and allows the trade a margin of profit of 37 per cent. Why cannot that 17 per cent. be divided between the consumer and the producer? If that is done there will be satisfaction amongst both sections, but he goes further and says that it is only the Nationalists and the people who have been misled by the propaganda of the Nationalists who will not send their cattle to the controller. But now we wish to ask the Minister to come a little nearer home; he must enquire from his colleague the hon. Minister of Lands where he sends his sheep, Whether he sends them to the stock sales or to the controller, and let him also ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) where he sends his animals.

90 per cent. go to the controller.

The hon. member admits it partly. I do not know whether that hon. member and the Minister of Lands were also misled by the propaganda of the Nationalists; I do not blame them for not sending their sheep to the controller because the whole system is applied so miserably that no-one with brains can send his cattle to the controller. I wish that I had an opportunity here to mention a few examples, but as it is I shall mention only one. A certain farmer sent seven head of cattle to the controller. They were graded and they were hanging in a row. The first one was marked super, and so they went down and the one at the bottom of the row, which the owner had considered was not fit to be second grade, was graded as second grade. But the farmer objected. He was of opinion that six out of the seven cattle were first-grade. He then told the grader that he was dissatisfied with the grading. Then the grader said: “Wait, I will get my other people to grade the cattle.” For one or other reason he could not find one of the other people. He then went out, ostensibly to call one of them, but quite possibly in order first to tell them what to do. In the meantime the seven carcases were hung in different order with the grade mark invisible on the other side.

Have you the proof of that?

Yes. What was the result? The result was that that carcase which had been marked super was then marked second-grade, and the whole lot was just marked the other way. How can you have any confidence in any system of grading when such things happen? Therefore I do not blame the Minister of Lands and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) if they do not send their cattle to the controller.

As far as I am concerned what you are saying is untrue.

I now wish to ask the Minister what control he has over the meat killed in Cape Town by the Jewish Rabbis, just to mention one example. I do not make this remark because I do not wish the Jews to have meat. They must have their fair share, but the rich Jews who buy that type of meat are gaining an advantage as against the poor Jews.

But that is not pork.

I say that the Minister of Agriculture and his organisation have not the least control over the meat slaughtered by the Jewish Rabbi in Cape Town. What happens? For example 50 head of cattle are cut out as a large butcher’s quota. Then the gentleman comes and selects from that the best and as many as he wants, and the remaining cattle then go to the general public. No, we say that this type of action and a scheme under which certain sections of the population are prejudiced as against others is a scheme which will never be satisfactory. If the scheme is very good, you will have satisfaction amongst the producers and also amongst the consumers. But the Minister of Agriculture cannot and must not blame us when we say that we do not recognise in him the protector of agriculture and if we do not even think that he intends to play that rôle. At the moment the Minister is still trying to sit on two chairs in order to justify his position as Minister of Agriculture, but the day will arrive when he will fall in between the two chairs, and it may be soon and his fall will be great. We think that the time has arrived when we must begin to have a straight talk. Just as Joseph Stalin today pretends to be the greatest democrat in the world, solely in order to attain his own objects, so this Government, and especially the Minister of Agriculture, today pretend that they favour a policy of control. Judging by their actions we can say nothing else but that they set to work very cleverly to kill the principles of control in South Africa. When the prices of controlled articles are spoken about here one immediately hears: “It is the farmer.” No, in that seat which is now empty, sits the dictator of the prices received by the farmer. He and he alone is the man who decides these things. He is the man who by regulation allows usurious profits to be made out of the food of the nation and who by shutting his eyes allows these profits to be made. But what is still worse, one of the most unhealthy and vile practices, which is openly permitted in South Africa, especially under this Government, is the fact that the Government selects the leaders or socalled leaders in the sphere of agriculture, and offers them highly paid posts. These persons then come on to the boards of the Government and the Minister then knows that he need only press the button: they know on which side their bread is buttered. If the Minister’s satellites are not on the boards he does one of two things. He simply appoints them on the boards, notwithstanding the recommendations of the agricultural unions. In this way he acted for example in the Free State. The Free State Agricultural Union nominated a supporter of the Government on the Dairy Board, but unfortunately he was not one of the satellites, and the minister of Agriculture proceeded to appoint a man who all his life had tried to get a position under this Government whether in Parliament or in the Provincial Council or on any other sort of board, and the Government appointed him as their representative on the Dairy Board. He is a man who never in his life belonged to any agricultural organisation. He knows nothing about it. As somebody told me, he even buys milk and does not possess a single cow. He is now appointed as the representative of the dairy farmers in the Free State. But when the Government does not succeed in appointing its own supporters on the Board, then it, in the second place vetoes the appointment of such a person whose politics do not agree with those of the Government, as was done in the case of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. H. F. Bekker). If we continue in this way any longer, and I think we have almost reached that stage, control boards in South Africa will become nothing else but a dummy with which to fob off the farmer and a cloak to hide the sins of the Government. In the meantime, while jobs for pals are sought for, while this clever manoeuvre is in existence, the producer and the consumer have to pay the piper. The producer does not receive what he is entitled to and the consumer does hot receive enough food. If the consumer still can obtain anything he has to pay through the nose for it. The position has become so serious that even the supporters of the Government have become dissatisfied and are suggesting that a Ministry of Food should be called into existence. We are glad to see that the Minister has done at least one good thing, namely not to accede to that request, because in principle we are against it. But why do people come with this request? Because the Government has shown itself to be impotent and incapable of controlling the food position in South Africa. It cannot do it. Therefore even its own supporters are so dissatisfied that they put forward all sorts of suggestions which they want the Government to carry out. When we have regard to the fact that the Prime-Miniter found himself in the greatest difficulty about the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture, and that he considered none of his farming representatives to be efficient enough to be appointed as Minister of Agriculture, we cannot possibly expect benefit from the appointment of a Ministry of Food because in that case we can only expect even more muddling. Therefore I am of opinion that such a change will not help, seeing that the Government has proved that it is impotent to control conditions. We see that there is mutiny in its own ranks. Under the circumstances in this emergency, I would prefer to see a central economic nutrition board being appointed under the Department of Agriculture, composed of experts, producers and consumers. In Heaven’s name do not let it be constituted by Government supporters. It should be stipulated that nobody in receipt of any salary of any description from the Government or from any political party should be allowed to serve on the Board. It must be a Board composed out of the nation and for the nation. We shall have to give the Board certain powers, for example to stop all exports of all food, except that which is needed for our own soldiers, immediately.

Do you concede that?

Of course. They are from our country and must receive food, but the exportation of food to any other country must be stopped. Secondly we should like to give the Board power immediately to remove many of the cumbersome methods adopted today which stand in the way of production and distribution. We would give the Board the power to put into existence a healthy, effective marketing and distribution system, which eliminates all waste and speculation in foodstuffs. We would give the Board power immediately to fix economic, minimum and maximum prices, but not to allow such a wide range of prices as the Minister of Agriculture permitted in his meat scheme. The Board must, according to circumstances fix the margin of profit on the different foodstuffs from time to time. We would cut out the usurious profits which are being made and give the benefit of it to the people to whom it belongs, namely the consumers and the producers. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not here because I wish to tell him to his face that he cannot blame us if we do not see in him an efficient Minister of Agrictuure. He may be a good barrister, a good person to imitate his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and to try to preach to members on this side of the House, and to tell them that they do not really always give correct figures, something he has already tried to do to his own shame; he may also be a good person in imitating the Prime Minister in his way of standing, talking and walking, but he is a weak Minister of Agriculture. If he would only be himself, and be original, he may be a great success as Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, by comparison with the toxic and ebullient effort of the hon. member who has just sat down my own contribution will I fear be a very modest and sober one. But I make it nevertheless for what it is worth. If this motion were really the outcome of an intention on the part of the Opposition to concern itself from now onwards with the problem of the social and economic uplift of the people, I am sure it would be welcomed throughout the country. It would in itself make the task of the Government much easier than it is today. The Government would not require to be concerned with the fact and to pay regard to it that there is a proportion of our South African community hostile to the war effort and hostile to everything that flows in consequence from it. With the co-operation of these people who have stood in the way, in the last five years, I have no real doubts that not only the food position but almost every problem which we face today could be solved. With their co-operation the country would at any rate be in a far healthier state. I make the point strongly that in no small measure the situation we are facing today in respect of food and in respect of many other difficulties which today trouble the community, can be laid at the door of the gentlemen of the Opposition. It is a trite saying but one worth repeating, that protestations are one thing, but the motive is another; and the motive of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, on the face of it reflecting concern for food shortages, will be judged not by what he says today but by the record of his party in past years. In the light of that record there can be no question in regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the concern expressed at this late hour by those honourable gentlemen about what are in fact food shortages and food problems. When the people cried for bread the. Reverend gentleman for Piketberg offered them a slice of Republic, and a handshake with the enemy. Mr. Speaker, the food shortage is no new thing. One would infer from the address of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the shortage of food is something which came about during the war years, and I have little doubt that he would wish one to understand that the fact that we went into the war is primarily, if not entirely responsible. Does the hon. gentleman pretend to have forgotten the fact that long before the war, in the days of the regime, as Minister of Agriculture, of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) we already had an acute malnutrition problem in South Africa? I am not aware that in those days either of these two hon. members concerned themselves one iota over the fact that there were literally thousands, European and NonEuropean, who were without food; and they were without food, because of the policy of these hon. gentlemen. The very foundation of our critical situation today lies in the misguided agricultural policy followed under the regime of these hon. members, when they sent overseas food for the consumption of people in Britain and elsewhere at the expense of the South African consumer. They were spoken of as surpluses because it suited the Minister in charge to speak about sprplus food, but in point of fact they were not surpluses. There can never be a surplus until our South African community is at least adequately fed. The South African people were then without sufficient food yet food was going overseas at the behest of the hon. member who is now shedding crocodile tears over the present situation. In those days there was no political value to be attached to food shortages and it therefore did not occur to the hon. members to make capital out of what was then fast becoming a critical situation. It became worse. It became very much worse. But that is not the reason why the Opposition is concerned about it at all. It is concerned because it has today terrific political value and the hon. members on the Opposition benches are far too astute as politicians to forego an opportunity of exploiting such propaganda to the full. Part of the policy of exporting food at the time when our own community was short of food was the wrong relationship that was allowed to exist as between the claims of the producer and the claims of the consumer. It follows that if the consumer was being deprived of essential foodstuffs and it was being sent overseas, the supreme consideration in the minds of those responsible was to further the aims of the producer and not to concern themselves with the consumer. That was in my submission a wrong policy and today we are paying the price for the foundation that was laid in the days of the regime of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his colleague the member for Wolmaransstad. We have had in this House in the last few days an explanation as to factors which have contributed both to the shortages of food and to the worsening of the situation. I want to say that I am somewhat nonplussed that the responsible Minister has not taken steps in the months gone by to intimate to the country as fully as he has informed the House what are, as far as they do go, legitimate explanations and genuine contributing factors to the situation as it exists today. Mr. Speaker, the public is entitled to know. The public is entitled to know the explanations if they are there, and it would have relieved public anxiety to know, and we would have had less suspicions of Government inertia. We do not want any excuses which do not rest on a sure foundation. Now we have been told that the Government is taking steps to meet the situation, and there seems to be a good deal to be said for that, that the Government is taking steps to attempt, at any rate, to meet the situation. But that is not enough. We are facing, without doubt, a critical phase in respect of our food shortages. We are long past the stage where we can meet the present critical phase in terms of long-term policies. We have to deal with this critical phase as a crisis, and no less. While it is true that the Government is taking action and that steps have been taken, that other steps are promised and further steps are being considered, the tempo of that action is far too slow. There is an urgency about this problem which cannot countenance delay. The fact that the Government is not moving fast enough is exemplified by the action which the Government has taken in the past to meet the situation, but always a step too late. There was a clamour, for instance, for the appointment of a Food Controller some considerable time ago, and the Government did eventually appoint a Food Controller, but very long after that clamour had been in existence. For a long time we have had a public demand for the manufacture of margarine in this country, a proposition against which, in the interests solely of the producers, the Government had for a long time set its face and only now has given way. We have had this demand and it is a universal demand for rationing year in and year out and now only has the Government agreed to consider the matter. I hope there will be no doubt as to its decision. I say all these steps are right and proper, and that they are an indication that the Government is tackling the matter, but so urgent is the problem and so critical that the Government must move faster in the direction in which it is moving. I believe it is true to say that the people in South Africa, wanting food as they do, do not want food at the expense of Great Britain, and I for my part—and I have no doubt that it also applies to those who are behind the Government—would regret very greatly if the meat shortage necessitated diverting meat from Britain for our consumption, when it was intended for Britain.

Why don’t you go to Britain?

Or to Palestine?

Why don’t you go to Germany? Now, Mr. Speaker, that disposes of this point, but may I add just this that while it is true that there are several cogent reasons which are contributing factors to the extreme food shortage of today, it is unwise of the Government to rely too strongly on the existence of these factors. If the position is worsening the responsibility of the Government becomes greater, and it will have to move faster, and I hope that that will be the policy in the future. I want to say a word on a further aspect of this same food problem, which does not touch the short-range policy but nevertheless is vital. I believe that a good deal of our trouble in respect of food in this country is due to monopolistic influences. We have it in regard to meat and fish and we have it in regard to all those foodstuffs which come within the jurisdiction of one or other of the control boards, because I look upon them also as monopolistic concerns. I believe that we shall not be able to have a sound food policy unless we deal firmly and boldly with the hold these influences have on South Africa. Now the motion also deals with the Health Commission Report and the mover of the motion, the Leader of the Opposition, if I understood him correctly, laid claim to this suggestion that it was part of the Nationalist Party programme and had in fact been advocated by them in this House for some time. But what the Nationalist Party has demanded is merely centralisation in Pretoria. It has demanded that the whole of our Health Services should test in the hands of the Union Health Department. How far that squares with the report of the Health Commission I am at a loss to see The very spirit of the Report is lacking, and has always been lacking, from any recommendation of the hon. member’s party. The public did not clamour for the Health Services which the Commission propounded, but what the public did clamour for was some health service on a national basis which would provide the whole of the community with essential medical services. How that was to be done was obviously beyond the understanding of the rank and file. But there was a consciousness that the time had arrived for some large, bold imaginative plan, and the Health Commission proposed it in its admirable report. Now that the public has become aware of how they can be given what they demand, it in turn demands that the recommendations of the Health Commission be given effect to. There are stumbling blocks; at least the Government sees stumbling blocks, and that is the rights of the Provincial Councils. But is it not a question of putting the cart before the horse? The question is: which comes first, National health services for South Africa, or respect for the authority of the Provincial Councils. It is a question of their relative importance, and relative urgency, and if the one stands in the way of the other my submission is that consideration must be given to removing what is the obstacle; and I believe that the Government should give consideration to this question. The hon. the Minister of Public Health said that the effect of what the Government intended to do was the same, to this extent, that hospitalisation would be undertaken by the provinces in return for a subsidy. But four provincial hospitalisation systems can under no circumstances be equal to one National system, and I would urge upon the Government the desirability of assessing the present stumbling block in this problem in its true light and to assess the importance and the urgency of the demand for health services. If it comes to the conclusion, as I believe that it should, that the National Health Service propounded is something which is realistic, which is what the public demands, and which in its importance far overrides questions of purely legal and constitutional character, then it will push out of the way the constitutional objections.

It is unnecessary for meto reply to all the different questions which were put by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier). If he really wanted information and if he really wanted to ascertain the true state of affairs, he need only have listened to the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. Minister of Agriculture dealt with all these questions in a capable and adequate manner, and it is unnecessary for us therefore to go into those questions any further. I want to confine myself more particularly to another aspect of this motion. It is true, there may be a difference of opinion in regard to the nature and effect of the motion which was introduced by the Hon. Leader of Opposition. If there is such a difference of opinion, that hon. member and he alone is responsible for it. He chose to describe it as a motion of censure. But at the same time he claims the preference which is usually accorded to an outright motion of no confidence. The action of the hon. member is not however as innocent as he pretends because he acted deliberately and consciously. It is clear that the hon. member wanted to conceal the true position. He is anxious to cover up the crux and the root of the matter. He dare not deal with that! He is anxious to derive every possible advantage from the form of this motion as introduced by him, but he is averse to bearing the responsibility which is coupled with it. If we read the second portion of the motion, we find that there he says: “and generally of the Government’s state of unpreparedness with regard to the anticipated post-war situation.” What strikes us is the fact that the crux of the whole matter is contained in those few words. It is the war. I can well understand that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition with his followers would be anxious to evade the war question, but if this motion of censure is accepted and if it is regarded by the Government as a motion of no confidence, that hon. member would be entitled to make an appeal to the country and ask the people to put him in Government. During the past four or five years, we have had to listen to motions of no confidence in this House repeatedly. All those motions of no confidence dealt with the Government’s war policy. The Government has repeatedly been attacked on the ground that it declared war without an instruction or mandate from the people. We were challenged to hold a referendum or election in regard to the war issue. That was done in due course, and I make bold to say that even the Leader of the Opposition cannot be blind to the result of that election. By an overwhelming vote and with a vast majority the people indicated their approval of the war policy of the Government as against that of the other party. The anticipated post-war conditions will, of course, depend on the result of the war. We would like to know from the Hon. Leader of the Opposition what conditions he really expects. They stated frankly in the past that they pinned their hopes on a German victory. I am sorry the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) is not present. But I want to remind him of the fact that in a town near Ermelo, i.e. Bethal, he said that South Africa stood to gain a rich inheritance, a great inheritance, namely, a free, independent republic. From whom was South Africa going to get that inheritance? From the generous hand of a victorious Hitler?

He did not say that.

That is what he said there.

You know that that is not the case.

The Leader of the Opposition said on that occasion that a great inheritance was awaiting the people of South Africa, and that inheritance was a free, independent republic. My question is, from whom were they going to get it?

But you are being unfair in putting it that way.

My reply is that they expected it from the generous hands of a victorious Adolf Hitler.

Beware if Stalin gets hold of you.

I can well understand that hon. members on the other side are beginning to feel uneasy, because they would prefer to run away from the war policy. The hon. member for Piketberg went on to say: “But in that case we must have a Government in this country which is favourably disposed towards Hitler,” and he added: “We are that Government.” Now we would like to know from the Leader of the Opposition, if his motion is accepted by this House, and if he has to go back to the people, whether the people can expect him to take them into his confidence and tell them whether he and his Party are still relying on a German victory. Is he still sharing the hope with Hitler and Goebbels that Germany is going to be victorious? The whole post-war policy of any Government in this country revolves on this important question of what is going to be the outcome of the war. Does the Leader of the Opposition realise now that he and his Party have been hopelessly mistaken and that as far as the war is concerned, they attached a completely wrong interpretation to every state of international affairs? Would it not be better for the Leader of the Opposition to be magnanimous enough to say: “I have made a mistake; I honestly and truly believed that Germany would win, and for that reason I thought it would be in the interests of South Africa to share victory with the victor. Until such time as we ascertain the present policy of the members of the Opposition in regard to the war, we cannot say what the post-war position which they expect will be. The people are entitled to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he is going to negotiate for peace if he gets into power? He has said repeatedly that he is going to make peace. I do not know where he is going to run across Hitler and Mussolini, but he wants to make peace. Is he going to recall our fighting forces? What is he going to do with the British and other troops who are in South Africa at the moment? These are practical questions, and when he makes an appeal for the confidence of the people, we are entitled to demand a reply to those pertinent questions. If he admits—he cannot be blind to what is happening in Europe both in the East and in the West, and he knows that the spearheads of the Russian army are approaching Berlin—if he admits that Germany has lost the war and that the. United Nations are going to win, then we want to put this further question to him: Is he in a position to accomplish anything worth while for this country in the post-war period; can he and his Party who have done everything in their power to thwart the efforts of the United Nations in every way, expect any concessions from them?

What will Josef Stalin do?

He will certainly not listen to the hon. member for Piketberg. I do not think Stalin has ever heard of him. Will the United Nations listen to our Hon. Leader, the Prime Minister, or will they listen to the hon. member for Piketberg? I know it is not pleasant for members on the other side to hear these things. One does not like hearing the truth. But we are discussing a serious problem, and we have to point out these things to them.

When are you going to deal with the motion?

They are trying to make use of our internal difficulties in order to cover their political nakedness, and in order to disguise their political bankruptcy. No, we must know what their attitude is in respect of the greatest of all problems, the greatest problem with which this country has ever been faced, and the greatest problem, in fact, that has ever faced any country in the history of the world, namely what their attitude is towards the war.

I think the hon. member must now come back to the motion.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to point out that reference is made in the motion to the postwar position. I say that this Government, even if it made mistakes—and no one is perfect and we all admit that mistakes have been made—would have made more serious mistakes if they had followed the policy of members on the other side. I also want to say that even if there are shortcomings here and there, this Government is the only Government which can remain in power in South Africa if we want to look after the true interests of the people not only now but also in the post-war period.

You had better be careful or the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) will throw a fit.

That hon. member apparently has a fit already. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition dare not reply to the questions which I have put to him here. I want to come back, however, to the internal difficulties. We admit that there are shortcomings here and there. We admit that there are defects in the meat scheme, for example, but we are determined to improve those shortcomings. We have learned from experience and we hope to bring about improvements from time to time for the welfare of the people. When we listened to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he introduced this motion, we heard how he made light of the alleged calamity which has befallen the people, how he wanted to suggest that he had the power in his hands to solve all those problems. May we ask him, if his motion is accepted, and if he comes into power tomorrow, whether he would compel hens to lay two eggs per day. No, he will not be able to improve the food position, unless he wants us to infer from his argument that he and his party are in possession of the food supplies and that they are going to make those food supplies available to everyone as soon as his Government comes into power. Are we to infer that from his argument that if he comes into power, he will pay the farmer 5s. per lb. for meat and that he is going to sell the same meat to the consumer at 6d. per lb? Sure there must be some relation between the price which the producer gets and the price which the consumer pays. A serious effort was made in this meat scheme to strike a balance, to ensure a reasonable price for the farmer on the one hand, and to provide food to the consumer at reasonable prices on the other hand. We would like to see the farmer getting 5s. per lb. for meat, but who is going to pay it? If the state of affairs in this country is as critical and disastrous as the hon. member for Piketberg described it, is it not his duty to follow the example of the magnanimous and manly action of the Prime Minister, as we witnessed in 1933? In that year the Government of which the hon. member for Piketberg was a member, was in power. They hopelessly failed in connection with the gold standard. The Prime Minister could easily have gained a decisive victory at an election, but he preferred to relegate his own personal interests and any possible political ambition to the background and to co-operate in the Coalition Government in order to serve the people of South Africa in that way. Is the hon. member for Piketberg prepared to do that now, or does he want to exploit the disastrous position in which the people find themselves and make political capital out of the hunger of the nation? To what extent is he prepared to let the people suffer when it is within his power to save them from misery as long as it serves his political purposes? These are the questions which I want to put to the hon. member, and we are waiting for a reply, and not only we in this House, but also the people in the country. We find all of a sudden that there has been a complete somersault on the other side. They have always been in favour of export but now they are complaining about the foodstuffs which have been exported. Have those members uttered one word of thanks towards Britain and America who have supplied us with goods although they needed some of those goods themselves? Take a country like England. We can buy as much clothing as we can afford? We are not rationed. In England the people are rationed. They provide us with clothing, machinery and other requisites. Artificial manure, wheat bags etc. are shipped to our coasts in their ships. This has already been mentioned by other members, and I need not enlarge on that point. We do lack certain things in our country. There may be shortages here and there, but the greatest thing we lack is a sense of appreciation. There is not a single country in the world where life is better than in South Africa. Even in comparison with a powerful country like the United States, we are living in Canaan. In this country we are much better off than the people in any other country. I repeat that the only thing we lack is a sense of gratefulness and appreciation, not only for what this Government has achieved under the leadership of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, but also for the benefits we have enjoyed under the protection of our Allies. What is the attitude of members on the other side towards the soldiers in the post-war period? Have we ever heard expressions of appreciation from them? Has any appreciation or pride ever been expressed in connection with the achievements of our soldiers on all the battlefields of the world? Do they pay homage to our brave fighting forces; do they acclaim the deeds of heroism of our soldiers? Have they ever expressed a single word of gratitude towards a man like Dan Pienaar of El Alamein? We may not be contributing large numbers, but thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister the North African campaign was a success; thanks to the stand we made at El Alamein under the leadership of Dan Pienaar, a decisive blow was struck which has contributed to the final victory which is being achieved at the moment in this war. No, we hear nothing about it. All we get from them is grumbling, whining and complaining. We are trying, to the best of our ability, to rectify the mistakes which may have been made, and if hon. members opposite were in earnest, they would have co-operated with us and assisted us; if they wanted to assist us to improve the internal conditions, they would have co-operated with us and admitted that we really have reason for gratitude in our country.

I am afraid we are somewhat inclined to wander from this motion as was proved by the last speaker. He spoke for a long time, but he never came to the motion which is before the House. I think it may be as well to read this motion once again—

If there is anyone who tried to get away from this motion, it is the hon. member who has just sat down. He said the Hon. Leader of the Opposition wanted to get away from the war policy of the Government. Can he find anything in this motion which I have just read which deals with the war policy of the Government? The main point in the motion is that we have food in this country, but that we are not making the best use of that food. What is the fundamental problem in this country today? Surely, it is this very matter. The hon. member now asks whether, if we get into power, we will see to it that the farmer gets 5s. per lb. for his meat. That would be the last thing we would do, because no-one can afford to pay that price, and it would not be a sound proposition. What we will do, and that is the main point, will be to make the best use of the supplies which we have in this country, in order to bring those supplies to the consumers at a reasonable price.

What do you suggest?

As soon as we come into power we shall show hon. members on the other side that every consumer will be able to obtain the meat he requires.

At what price?

At a reasonable price, not at a higher price than they paid when the scheme came into operation. Now that this scheme has been in operation for eight months under the control of the Minister of Agriculture and of his Department, and he refuses to do anything with a view to improving the position, I must say in all honesty that in that respect we did not expect anything of the Minister. He made a speech here which lasted for two hours, and it was apparent from his whole speech that he did not realise in what misery this country has been plunged, and that he knows nothing of the matter. Today the people have to stand in queues. This morning I went to a few butcheries in order to see what the position is. On Monday the Minister commandeered meat; on Tuesday he again commandeered, and he also commandeered meat on Wednesday. I went along to see whether there was meat in the butcheries as a result of these supplies which have been sent to Cape Town. I could not find anything. I do not know what has become of the meat. I think the laxity and the incompetence of the Government, which is referred to in this motion, is responsible for that state of affairs to a large extent. The Minister clearly said in his speech that so far we have done nothing to assist. But how can we assist a man who does not want to be assisted. When the Minister announced this scheme in the House, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition moved the adjournment of the House the next day in order to discuss the scheme. No one can say that the criticism which was voiced at that time was not constructive. We tried to advise the Minister. We warned him of the consequences, but he definitely refused to take any notice of our advice. I still remember how the Minister banged on his desk and said: “This scheme will come into operation on Monday.” It was announced the previous Tuesday. If the Minister will only accept our advice, we will be able to give him very good advice to solve this whole problem within 24 hours. But he does not want to accept any advice. He will sink deeper and deeper into the mire, and the time will come when he will be completely immersed.

What is that advice?

We shall come to it later. All I can think, since the Minister says that we have not afforded him the slightest assistance, is that he wanted to drag us into this matter too. He wanted to make us a party to this failure of his scheme, so that later on he could say that we had agreed and had assisted him to fall into the mire. I am very glad that we kept out of it. We gave him very good advice but he would not accept that advice. He, together with the whole Cabinet, is responsible for the position which has been created in this country. The Minister stated here that he was engaged in effecting an improvement, and he asked the Leader of the Opposition whether he wanted those improvements to be withdrawn. In the first place, I want to say that that was a childish remark. He stated that he had brought about improvements and that the Leader of the Opposition wanted him to withdraw those improvements. Let me tell the Hon. Minister of Agriculture that the improvements which he is supposed to have brought about have meant either very little or absolutely nothing in comparison with the failure which he made of this scheme. In one or two cases he increased the price slightly for certain grades of meat. It is very little, and hardly helps at all. The whole scheme is full of inconsistencies. Let me mention one or two of them. He stipulated that Merino meat could not be graded as super. He has now altered it. It probably made very little difference to the whole scheme. Then take the price of lamb. The price for super prime is 12d. Every farmer knows that the difference between super prime and prime is very slight, but nevertheless under his scheme there is a difference of 2d. per lb. in the price. The whole scheme is full of such inconsistencies. Take the question of Persian lambs. Under this scheme Persian lambs cannot be graded higher than first grade but not super-grade, although in the past the butchers have always accepted it as the best grade of lamb and still do in the platteland. These are matters in regard to which we could have advised the Minister, but he simply did not want our advice. There is one argument, along with many others, which the Minister used a great deal, and which I should like to mention. He again gave the number of head of cattle we have in the country, according to the last census. It appears from that that actually there are more cattle in the country today than there were in 1939. But the remarkable part of it is that in the last few years the cattle have all become cows and calves. We do not know what has become of the slaughter cattle. The Minister wants to make us believe that we have only got cows and calves and young cattle today, with the result that no cattle are sent to the market. I Want to ask any practical farmer on the other side, such as the Minister of Lands and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward), whether, if the cattle on their farms become too numerous, those cattle change into cows and calves? It may be that there is a temporary shortage of beef at the moment. We often have temporary shortages of goods in our country, and I should not be surprised if there is a temporary shortage of beef at present owing to the drought. But fortunately we have had good rains in the country, and we expect the position will be in order again in the near future. From time to time we have had shortages in different commodities in this country, and things have adjusted themselves again. But this year we are concerned about the food position, because we are afraid that the mismanagement on the part of the Government is going to continue. We are afraid that as a result of this drought there will again be a shortage of one of the staple foodstuffs of a large section of the people, i.e. mealies. There is little prospect of sufficient mealies being produced to provide for the needs of that great section of our people. For all practical purposes South Africa is heading for a disaster today. Where this incapability is being manifested to make the best use of the available foodstuffs, we are really heading for a disaster and I shall not be surprised at all if we are still going to be faced with starvation in this country during the course of this year. We know what the position in this country is today with regard to foodstuffs. We know what the position is with regard to meat. Having regard to the fact that the past year has been a comparatively good year and the fact that we had a big failure during the past year, and bearing in mind the position of chaos which has existed in the country, I should like to know what the position is going to be under the control of the present Government if we get an adverse year, as we are expecting? Hon. members have said that we exported on too great a scale. I notice according to the statement which the Minister of Agriculture issued on September 1944, that in 1939 we exported 312 tons of meat while in 1942 and 1943 we exported 18,000 tons and 11,000 tons respectively. In addition to the export of this quantity of meat, the following foodstuffs were exported in 1942 and 1943: 7,500,000 lbs. of butter, a large quantity of cheese and other products. We have no fault to find with that, but we want to know what became of the other meat. Very well, we may have exported it to other countries which required this meat, and where the people were experiencing difficult times. But now we come to this food scheme of the Government, and we notice from a statement of the Director-General of Supplies which he made on the 14th June last, that we have been exporting so much; we could get so much tinplate to can so much meat, etc. etc. We propose to export so much to the British Ministry of Food. And he adds that there is a shortage of meat in this country but under this new scheme it is hoped to obtain the necessary quantity of meat and to be able to export 20,000 lbs. per day. We have no objection to that provided we have the meat to export and if there are other people who require it. If we can export without prejudicing our own people, then we have no objection. What is happening here? The. Director-General of Supplies is trying to obtain as much meat as possible with a view to exporting it; he is trying to obtain it under the new scheme. Is there a farmer in this House who can say that the farmer is not getting less under this scheme than he got previously? If we want to export, why must we first force down the prices? That is not right. Since we have exported so much—and we exported it at the prices which obtained then—why did the Minister first have to force down the prices after he had decided to export meat? I have here a statement of the Director-General of Supplies. I took this from an English newspaper, it was not taken from “Die Burger”. I am prepared to read the whole article to the House if hon. members are not convinced that it is really printed here. When this scheme was announced in the House, we on this side of the House immediately reacted and the following day we discussed it in this House, and we gave the Minister very good advice. It is a great pity he did not heed that advice. What happened next? The Woolgrowers’ Association was in conference during that week in Bloemfontein. Without any knowledge of pur decision, they reacted to the announcement of the prices the following day.

They reacted the same day.

Are those people a lot of stupid farmers too? Were they all Opposition supporters? Were these not people who were interested in the whole scheme? They then sent a deputation to Cape Town. And what happened when they came here? For some reason or other the Minister did not want to see them at first. Eventually he did see them, but he rejected every proposal they made, and I think those people would have given him very good advice if he had only listened to them, but he would not do so. He thought he was cleverer than all of them. Eventually the very thing against which we warned took place. On that day we warned the hon. Minister that this scheme would be a failure. I suppose we have never had a greater failure in this country under any administration. The unfortunate part of it is that not only the Minister and the other members of the Cabinet suffer in consequence, but also the poor people of this country who have to stand in queues for meat, and when they have stood in a queue for 24 hours perhaps, they still do not get anything. In conclusion I just want to say this to the Minister.

What are you suggesting?

We are not suggesting anything. We have already given advice but we say if the Minister wanted to use his brains he could have put this scheme in order within 24 hours.

How could he have put it in order?

The hon. member is trying to catch me out, but I shall not tell him either. We discussed the matter here in Parliament. We pointed out the weaknesses of the scheme to the Minister and we told him it would be a failure. Outside the larger towns there is no shortage of meat. There the Minister also stepped in and told the butchers: “Where you slaughtered so many head of cattle in the past, you will not be allowed to slaughter more than a certain number in the future.” But nevertheless those people are getting meat. Here at the very gates of Cape Town the butchers are still getting all the meat they want, and they are not paying excessive prices. The sale prices have been fixed but they are getting all the meat they want, and the poor people of Cape Town dare not go out of town to buy meat. If they were to do so, they might find themselves in the same position as one of the members of this House; they may be fined. I maintain that although meat may not be as plentiful today as it was previously, if there had been proper distribution, if there had been proper administration of this meat scheme; if it were placed in capable hands, there would be sufficient meat in Cape Town for everyone tomorrow.

I honestly think that if I ever listened to a motion that has been camouflaged, it is this motion that has been brought before the House by the party opposite. We know that if a veil is drawn over anything there is something wrong about it.

Wear a mask.

I should like to say a few words about the last part of the motion in which it is asserted that no preparation has been made for post-war conditions in South Africa. I honestly think that the general feeling amongst the public in South Africa, whether they originally supported the Government or not, is today that we owe a debt of gratitude to this Government. I can only repeat a remark that one of my old Nationalist friends recently employed, namely: “If Oom Jannie can continue with the war long enough I shall yet be able to buy a couple of farms.” In spite of the difficulties that prevail the people are thankful that the Government has not only done its duty at the front, but that it has made provision both for the present and for the future in so far as concerns our citizens in South Africa. When we observe what has been accomplished during the war period in South Africa to support the war effort in all its phases, one must feel grateful not only for what has been done to provide our own people with necessities, but also to provide our friends in other countries. Let us take just one article, the manufacture of boots. That is something in which the farmers are specially interested, because they sell the hides from which the boots are made. Look at the number of boots that are manufactured here, not only for South African soldiers and the civilian population, but for people of other countries. That is something that will remain in South Africa not only for the present period but also for the future. Let us look, too, at what the Government has accomplished in order to provide our people with mechanical transport. One is amazed to see that no fewer than 32,000 mechanical vehicles have been manufactured in South Africa. There we have something that will remain in South Africa after the war. It is something that can be converted to provide work for our people. It has been stated on the benches opposite that the Government has not made provision for employment of our people in the future. Let us test that. Just think about the big town that is being established in Vereeniging, where 150,000 houses are being erected for our people. When those houses have been erected hon. members in the Opposition will be only too glad to avail themselves of that additional centre for the disposal of their produce. The necessary steps are today being taken to assure the future of our people. But what do we find? In spite of all the constructive work the Government is doing today in South Africa, there is a subversive spirit which is not to be found in any other country in the world. What surprises us is that people whose children the present Government have benefited to such a great extent have railed against the Government in such a way in reference to education and in reference to food. And not only has the Government looked after our European children, but they have also looked after the native children to ensure their health. Hon. members opposite will not complain about that when the day arrives that those people go to work on their farms. If you turn to the finances of this country and you look at what the Minister of Agriculture and the Government have done in the farming sphere one is amazed that hon. members on the opposite side of the House should have the nerve to come into the House and to say that there is no prosperity in South Africa, and that this Government has not looked after the future. They talk of starvation. I do not think it redounds to the honour of South Africa that in a period such as this, in a period of prosperity, we should talk of starvation. It is a stain on the name of South Africa that people in this House should stand up and talk about famine.

Is it you who took the land away in the Zoutpansberg?

Our friends on the opposite benches are prepared to dig this country’s grave if they can do it in such a way as to derive political capital, but we on this side of the House represent all sections of the population whether they belong to our party or not. We want to see to it that every man in South Africa is able to make a good living. How they can say here that starvation exists in the country passes my comprehension. In my district at one place where before the war one bus ran to take the farmers’ produce to market, there now run no fewer than 27 a week. At another place where one bus used to run before the war there now run no fewer than twelve every day.

What do they carry?

Karakul sheep.

The hon. member asks what they carry. If he is not acquainted with South Africa then he should not be in this House. He ought to learn about the value of South Africa’s soil before he comes to this House; he ought to know what the people there farm. It is his duty towards his constituents to know this. Hon. members opposite have also spoken about fertiliser. Never has any Government gone so far out of its way as the present Government to assist the farming community to obtain the fertilisers that are needed. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) the other day criticised the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. That hon. member cannot talk. He has been helped in his district by 20 military lorries carrying manure for the farmers. This Government does not look at whether the representative of the people is a supporter of the Government or not. It helps the people of South Africa irrespective of their political opinions. We are experiencing difficult times but in spite of that we have never had a strike in this country.

Surely you are a stranger.

The workers of South Africa have cordially supported the Prime Minister, because they have sought the welfare and the prospects of South Africa, and during all the war years there has never been a strike on the mines. The workmen of South Africa stood firm.

Ask the Minister of Labour whether there have not been strikes.

I am surprised that people can still come and say that we have no prosperity in South Africa. The Minister of Railways recently gave our workers a big increase in their wages. The salaries and wages have been increased by £2,000,000. The party opposite were in power for years, and our railway employees went about bowed down and knee-haltered, and now hon. members opposite say that the railway workers are experiencing hard times. This Government has during the war period increased the salaries of the railway workers by over £2,000,000. In the years of depression hon. members opposite when they were in power, assisted to reduce the salaries of the railwaymen. This side of the House has done something for South Africa, for which the people of South Africa will always be thankful. I can mention several instances to indicate how much this Government has done for the country. When recently the people on the mines felt that they could better themselves, what happened? Difficulties appeared and without any friction those difficulties were removed to the great advantage of the mineworkers. I think it stands to the credit of the Government that in these dark days it has been able to solve these difficulties without leaving any poisonous feelings for the future.

Nevertheless the women worry the Minister of Agriculture.

I am surprised that hon. members can still make interjections of this nature. They themselves have done their utmost to stir up the women, and what has been the result here in the Cape? They convened a meeting, and six women came to attend the meeting. That is all the support that they got. One should not undermine the future of South Africa in the way certain members opposite want to do. Then we turn our thoughts to our Afrikaners who are living on the settlements, people who before the war had an income of £100 to £300. I make bold to say that some of our young Afrikaners are today making incomes of £1,800 to £2,000. I think that reflects the greatest credit on this Government and on the Minister of Lands for what he has accomplished. He has taken some of our poorer people and placed them, on the land and made independent citizens of them. Today they do not need to vote where this Government would like them to vote. They vote as they want to, and they talk the language that they want to. We reflect on all the subversive efforts that we have had here in the past, and we are grateful to notice how few wounds have been left behind. When we think of what has happened in other countries and what has happened in South Africa, then we can only be thankful that here so few wounds have been left. I think that South Africa will see it written in its history that this nation is greatly indebted to those who have been in power during these difficult years.

Are your referring to the Boer War women?

This Government has shown that even the dark days will not divert it from the path of right and justice. I want to say this that the farmers of South Africa have reason to be very thankful to the present Minister of Agriculture. This young Minister of Agriculture has been criticised from all sides. When the Government bought oxen for £26 one of the hon. members opposite took exception to that. Now they are all moaning that they cannot get high enough prices. Before the war they got 10s. for mealies; today they get 16s. 6d. Before the war they got 20s. and 25s. for wheat; today they get 38s. Before the war for a very good ox, for a prime ox they got £25. Today these are sold for anything up to £45.

That is no longer so today.

Never in the history of South Africa have the farmers derived such benefits as they do today. When one listens to the hon. members opposite one gains the impression that they grudge the farmers these benefits. The farmer is entitled to every pond that he gets, and here hon. members are engaged in indicating their disfavour of this prosperity of the farmers. This Government has given bigger salaries to the workers. Why? These higher salaries have been given so that the people will be in a position to buy food for themselves, their wives and their children on such a scale that they will not be undernourished.

Do you call that a benefit when a farmer gets 2s. 6d. for a bag of potatoes?

No Government would allow the mother of a child to be played with as these hon. members are now playing with the mothers of children. They want to exploit the mothers through them approaching the Houses of Parliament and saying they have not enough food. This is exploitation of the worst character.

But they do have to stand in queues.

Those friends who complain about the prices that they have to pay will have to reckon with their constituents at the following elections [Interruptions]. The hon. member thinks that he will put me off my stroke. I am much too honest to make a fool of myself. The hon. member opposite thinks that he is so efficient. He will have to go far if he wants to convert this House to his opinion for the members on this side have summed him up. We are engaged in a serious matter affecting the future of South Africa, while hon. members opposite are sitting there and cracking jokes. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition talks about laxity and incompetence on the part of the Government. I have the greatest respect for the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and I only want to say this to him. I think that the words that he employed in regard to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister do not become him. It does not become him to employ such words as he used the other day. I, as a young member, have the greatest respect for him, and I know that at the bottom of his heart he cannot honestly mean it when he employs such words; he does not mean it seriously. There is one thing above all others that we must do in South Africa, and that is not to try to make political capital out of the food position in South Africa. We have no right to do that. We ought in one sense to co-operate, namely seeing that the future of our nation is assured in so far as concerns food, and if the Opposition will do that they will be doing a good thing.

I do not think it is necessary to take very seriously the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. On six or seven occasions we have listened to him saying that we ought to award the greatest praise and gratitude to the Government for this and that, but in the meanwhile we find that the general public, especially the poor people, are suffering hunger. Is it necessary then to express thanks to the Government. Then the hon. member came with promises and stated that they are engaged in evolving a post-war programme. But what do we find? That in the meantime they are letting the people suffer hunger. They now want to make plans for four or five years ahead. Let them see to it that the people get food now, then perhaps we shall have a little confidence in their plans for the future. Before I refer to the motion I would just say this, that the hon. member for Potchef stroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) who unfortunately is not in his seat, made a false accusation when he spoke sneeringly yesterday about the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and said that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad had during the time of the Fusion Government thrust his republican propaganda entirely to one side. With all respect, that is absolutely untrue. I do not know whether the hon. member was present in the Fusion Party Caucus one day when the then hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) raised an objection against the republican propaganda that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad had made. Did the hon. member for Wolmaransstad remain seated quietly at that? No, he immediately jumped up and asked the hon. member for Kensington where he had got the audacity to prevent republican propaganda being made. To come here and profess that the hon. member had dropped his republican propaganda creates a false impression. In regard to the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) he did himself an injustice yesterday when he interrupted the hon. member for Wolmaransstad in a contemptuous way. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad has a clean and honourable record. I can only tell the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) that his term in Parliament will be very short, and he will later regret when he reflects on his conduct here during his short Parliamentary career. It is generally acknowledged that the portfolio of agriculture is one of the most difficult and most important. What has happened? When the post fell vacant the Minister came forward and proposed someone who was entirely inexperienced, in regard to the agricultural industry. Not only is he inexperienced, but in the past during his Parliamentary career he has also shown in his speeches that he has no sympathy for the farmers. The present Minister of Agriculture has in the course of the last ten years delivered 57 addresses in this House. From 1938 to 1942 he addressed the House on 21 occasions, and twice during that period he referred to the farmers incidentally. One occasion was when the Railways Vote was under discussion. He then made an objection against the low tariffs for the transport of farm produce. I should like to read out what he said—[Retranslation]

I want to draw attention to the special rates given to farm products in the Auditor-General’s report. On page 14 of the report of the Controller and Auditor-General it is stated—

The rebates vary from 20 per cent. for certain items to 90 per cent. for others. In regard to an item such as wool the Railways allow a rebate of 90 per cent…. I can only say without fear of contradiction that no private commercial concern would ever have been prepared to undertake such a service as the Government is undertaking for the farming community in this instance. I say further, that if the Minister were to go into the amount surrendered by way of production in the past as such items as wool, mohair, export citrus fruits, maize and maize meal, lucerne, fertilisers, agricultural machinery and implements, he will find that the figure amounts in the aggregate to something between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000.

It is apparent here what attitude he has assumed in the past in regard to the agricultural industry. We go further. During the period 1933 to 1938 he delivered 36 addresses, and once in that period did he make an incidental reference to farming. That was in connection with a budget which was before the House, and I shall quote what he said then—

And then the Prime Minister comes and appoints him as Minister of Agriculture. I think we are fully entitled to say that the Prime Minister dealt with this somewhat indifferently not alone in regard to the agricultural industry, but also in regard to the general public of South Africa, and the chaos in which the country is today is to a large extent attributable to that appointment. Accordingly; I say further that the Prime Minister shares the guilt in regard to the bad position in which the country finds itself today. If the Minister of Agriculture had earned elevation to Cabinet rank he is welcome to it, but I think the Prime Minister, if he had anyone else amongst his followers who was capable enough to become Minister of Agriculture should have reorganised his Cabinet. There is, for instance, the Minister of Lands. He is a practical farmer. But I can understand the Prime Minister’s difficulty. A large majority of the farmers are members of the church, and if dissatisfaction should arise the Minister would then accuse the church. Consequently, it would perhaps have been unwise to appoint him as Minister of Agriculture, but there is the Minister of Native Affairs. He is a practical farmer, and while the Prime Minister does not have at his disposal a surplus of ability amongst his followers, I think it would have been more in the interests of the country if he had appointed the Minister of Native Affairs as Minister of Agriculture. What happened shortly after the appointment of the present Minister? We then got a meat scheme which is gradually becoming known as the “meatless scheme.” The Minister has perpetrated terrible blunders as the result of his ignorance, and he has made it worse by not consulting his supporters, members on the other side of the House, Who may be practical farmers. But one can also understand that, because on his appointment there was considerable dissatisfaction, and perhaps he had not the temerity to consult them. We do not get any meat in the towns, and yet I can give the House the assurance that there is meat available. I do not want only to pass criticisms, but I want to make a suggestion. The organisation of the boards of control is very defective. But if the Prime Minister, around whom everything revolves, instructs the Minister of Agriculture immediately to increase the price of mutton and beef by 10s. per 100 lbs. and the season’s pigs by 5s. there will be enough meat. We saw what was the result of the temporary increase in the prices in November and at the beginning of December. More meat was then immediately placed on the markets. That is in the interests of the country. Do not be afraid, do not shrink from it. The Minister says that mistakes have been made; this is one of the mistakes. Let him be big and rectify the mistakes. Let me incidentally say that the pig breeders are in a still worse position than the cattle farmers and sheep farmers. It was in March, 1943, that the chairman of the Pigbreeders Association, Mr. Montague Simpson, submitted a memorandum to the Department of Economics and Markets in connection with the costs of production. This was a carefully drawn up memorandum in connection with the costs of production. What does the Minister find wrong with the memorandum? It is clear from it that the fixed prices were too low. Let the Minister again study that memorandum. The Minister stood up here and spoke for two hours, but I do not believe that he said a single word about pig breeding. If there is, as is actually the case, a shortage of beef and mutton, the Government by encouraging the pig breeders will be able to supplement to a considerable extent the supplies of meat. The Government must be very careful and immediately give the pig breeders a higher price. The pig breeders are now busy sending their breeding animals to the market. I am speaking from my own experience. I have a few pigs, but I am sending them to the market, because it does not pay me to carry on with them. Other people in my neighbourhood are doing the same thing. If the Government is not careful it will find within a short time that there is a similar shortage in regard to pork. So much as regards the meat position. Now I want to turn to the maize industry. The maize industry is one of the key industries in the sphere of agriculture, and in the last few years We have had a shortage of mealies. This is ascribed to droughts and weather conditions. Let me tell you that we have had to contend with unfavourable weather conditions, but that was also the case in the past. Does the Minister want to tell us that the droughts and the climatic conditions have been so bad just during the last four years that the shortage must be ascribed to them. I shall mention one or two causes of the shortage. As was mentioned by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) one of the causes of the shortage is the scarcity of labour, because the Government has put the labour of the platteland into uniform. It is high time that they were brought back to the farms. The Government has no benefit from the labour forces that it has put into uniform, and the earlier they bring them back to the farms the better. Then there is the fertiliser position. Supporters of the Government maintain that this year we received 50 per cent. of our needs in respect of fertiliser. That is not the case. Putting it at its best, we obtained 25 per cent. to 30 per cent., and then I doubt whether many farmers received so much. As a result of that scarcity of fertiliser, production costs have increased. The yield per morgen is lower, which increases production costs. A third factor is the uncertainty in regard to prices. There is today a shortage of mealies. Before the last winter the Minister ought to have given the maize farmers a guarantee of £1 for the following season. Unfortunately the Minister did not give that guarantee. In the winter beautiful rains fell, and if the farmers had the guarantee they would have ploughed up a great deal of land and consequently produced much more. But now they have not sown mealies on such a great scale. In reference to the meat industry, the position is more or less the same as that in the maize industry. The wheat farmers have one advantage, and that is that their prices have been fixed. If the price given to the wheatgrower is not remunerative he can leave it alone, but the price of wheat is today too low, and if the price is not increased the position will be much worse next year than it is today. Let us turn to potatoes. In the past according to my impression, there was usually an overproduction of potatoes, but from the time that the Minister began to intervene with the fixation of prices, and since he has only fixed a maximum price, the farmers have been discouraged. We have also stated that he should fix a minimum price. I know that it is difficult to fix a maximum price and a minimum price for a perishable product. Let him rather leave potatoes alone in the future. There is only a short period during the year when potatoes are scarce and prices rise. Let him then rather not intervene. But he should not knee-halter the farmers with a maximum price during that period, and leave the farmers to their fate if there is a glut of potatoes. In that way the production of potatoes is discouraged and made unpayable. In regard to the dairy farmers, we have the same position. It is made unpayable.

The Minister of Agriculture does not worry. He is standing outside and chatting in the Lobby.

It is high time that an honest survey was made of the increase in the cost-of-living since the beginning of the war. If it is determined that the increase is 40 per cent., the wage earners should receive an increase in proportion to that. The Government as the biggest employer, should set the example. Now it may perhaps be stated that this would make for inflation. But is it expected then that the farmers who today are in difficulties—although it is stated that they are flourishing—must again carry the burden owing to uneconomic prices. They are going to feel the pinch owing to drought and the measures taken by the Government. If this makes for inflationi we cannot get away from it, but the workers must be met. The farmers are paying higher wages to everyone. I find, however, that we have to deal with an obstinate Minister. Last year before the closing Session we, as members of the Western Transvaal, Sap en Nat received telegrams from the farmers of the Western Transvaal that we should make representations to the Minister. That was in May last year. We were asked to request the Minister to make a visit to our parts as early as possible. He made a half promise that he would come. We were then finally advised that on the 31st October he would be at Ventersdorp, but the day before that we received a telegram that he could not be there. He sent the Secretary for Agriculture, the chairman of the Marketing Board and Dr. Schutte. We had a meeting there, and it was not a political meeting but a very representative meeting. There were present representatives of the farmers’ associations at Ventersdorp, Klerksdorp, Potchefstroom and Lichtenburg, as well as representatives of the Central Western Co-operative Association, and there were also present Mr. H. J. Visser, M.P., Mr. Luttig, M.P. for Lichtenburg, and myself, as well as Mr. Du Preez, M.P.C. Mr. Hubert van der Merwe, the hon. member for Potchefstroom was also requested to be present, but he did not put in an appearance there. In any case, the gathering had no political complexion at all. We had as chairman a supporter of the United Party. The farmers there discussed certain things and made certain recommendations, and directed a request to the Minister of Agriculture that he should give us an answer within six weeks as to whether the recommendations were practical and would be accepted. If not, this was our request, he should substitute something else in their place. Until today we have not received any definite answer.

Did they ask you to discuss this matter in Parliament?

I have not quoted anything from the letter which we have now received.

Did they, in their letter, ask that you should deal with this on the floor of the House?

I deny that I have quoted anything from the letter that I have received. I am only stating what happened. The hon. member apparently feels guilty. If the hon. member wants to say anything by way of explanation I will give him the opportunity.

I should like to know ….

Is the hon. member (Mr. Wilkens) prepared to allow the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) to make an explanation?

Yes, an explanation as regards my statement.

In connection with the letter that was directed to the hon. member for Klerksdorp, the hon. member for Ventersdorp and myself, and I believe also the hon. member for Lichtenburg, I merely want to say that it was asked that we should meet in connection with the gathering that was held at Klerksdorp. I saw the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Visser) and the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens), and I asked that we should do what the letter suggested, namely, discuss the matter.

I again challenge the hon. member to show that I have quoted from that letter. The hon. member has now let the cat out of the bag. Let me, in conclusion, say that I do not believe in subsidies. In the past if there were difficulties subsidies were given. What I believe in is that the farmer should get the price to which he is entitled. If subsidies are given it is said that the farmers are spoonfed. The Minister of Agriculture has, in the past, also stated that he does not believe in subsidies, and that if the farmers are entitled to a better price it should come out of the Treasury. There I agree with him, and I hope that he will carry this out in practice. We find today that when ammunition is necessary no money is spared. That is right. If you want to make war you must have armaments, but food is just as necessary in time of war as ammunition. It is estimated—we receive no information from the Minister of Defence—that we have 15,000 men at the front today, and our expenditure in that connection runs to about £120,000,000 a year. That is enormous, and I do not believe that the hon. member vir Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) will thank the Government for that.

Where did you get those figures?

If I am wrong, give me the correct figures. If you want to have adequate food you must encourage the farmers to produce by giving them reasonable prices, not profiteering prices but guaranteed and fair prices. The Minister of Finance is also a scapegoat in connection with this hampering of production. He holds the purse strings. The Minister of Agriculture is called “Strong Man Strauss,” but I am afraid that he is not strong enough to induce the Minister of Finance to give him any rope. The pressure of taxation is a very big factor in discouraging the big farmers to produce. There is considerable risk connected with the production of agricultural products, and today with the reduced value of our money you do not need to farm on a very large scale to qualify for excess profits tax. If you are prospering and have a good harvest the Minister of Finance comes along as shareholder, or as more than that. He obtains the largest proportion. But if you have adversity then as a farmer you alone must bear the loss. I am not a farmer in a big way, but many of the big farmers for the reasons I have mentioned, are producing less than they can produce. Perhaps in the future they will again be hampered, but in view of the shortage of food give them a chance to produce now by easing somewhat the burden of taxation. These are just a few thoughts which I submit with all deference, and I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, who is the person responsible, to accord his serious attention to these few observations.

I should like to deal with the second portion of the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, namely that the House expresses its disapproval over the rejection of the recommendations of the National Health Commission. I want to know whether he considers that we should accept all the recommendations of the Commission. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition feel that the public and the medical profession are unanimous that this is the solution of the problem, and that consequently the Government should accept the recommendations of the Commission just as they stand? That is what his motion says. It is stated there that the action of the Government is disapproved because it has not accepted the recommendations of the Commission.

Look at the Hansard report, and you will see what I said.

It is stated in his motion that the House expresses its disapproval because the recommendations have not been accepted.

That is not the only thing that is stated there.

I only want to point out to this House that there is a big difference of opinion in the medical profession and also amongst the public over the proposals that have been made by the National Health Commission. We have previously had a Health Commission, namely the Colley Commission of eight or ten years ago, and we know that the recommendation of that commission was in favour of a national insurance scheme or a health insurance scheme, or as it was described in English “a national insurance scheme.” That was the recommendation of the Colley Commission, and that was the recommendation that the medical profession, as a whole, accepted at the time.

When was that?

That was eight or ten years ago. At that time the medical profession favoured the acceptance of insurance against sickness. This scheme that has now been recommended by the Gluckman Commission is a very important and comprehensive scheme. It is an allembracing scheme, but is it the most practical scheme that you can adopt? I know that the medical profession as a whole is not in favour of socialisation. They are not prepared to become Government officials. We addressed a circular to 3,000 doctors in the Union and at the front, and we received only 300 answers, and even those answers were not unanimous. We asked whether they were in favour of a state medical service, and as I have said, we received only 300 replies from more than 3,000 doctors, and those 300 were not unanimously in favour of it. Now it is proposed by this commission that there should be centralisation, and that the medical profession should be Government officials under the Department of Public Health.

But that is another question.

Is the party on the benches opposite in favour of it? We cannot say that the entire medical profession is in favour of it. If we go and socialise one section of the community we shall perhaps be perpetrating an injustice. We shall be satisfied if the whole of the population is included in it. I am just saying this in passing, but this scheme is accepted very readily by uninformed persons. Many of the people have not yet thoroughly studied the report of the Public Health Commission. I doubt whether 10 per cent. of the members of this House have studied it. We have today in our country many good medical services, except in respect of one section of the population, namely that section whom we describe as the middle class, the average salaried man. When he is laid up he has a pretty hard time. The rich man and the poor man do not feel it. But it was in order to provide the best services to the average man who draws a salary that the commission was appointed. The solution that they recommend is a state medical service, and central control, control through one channel. I say that that is not the only possible scheme. There is another scheme that is better, and let us rather expand that scheme. Let the provinces retain their control over the hospitals and free hospital services. Let us establish more health centres, as the Minister has proposed. Let us establish 400 of them right through the country. Let us expand the district surgeon services, and let the infectious diseases remain under the Department of Public Health. Our services are not of so chaotic a character that we should have to carry out a big revolution to satisfy the medical profession. We should extend the services that we now possess, and we can go in for a scheme of health insurance. If in addition we can also obtain insurance against unemployment and provide pensions then we shall virtually have a scheme of social security. I wish to emphasise that we should have a system of unemployment insurance running parallel with a scheme of health insurance.

What is the attitude of the Government on that?

I do not know what the attitude of the Government is. I am only speaking here for myself. So far as I know, the Government is well disposed in regard to the provision of medical services to the people, but that does not signify that the Government must accept the Gluckman scheme. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Social Welfare have raised objection to the modification which would have to ensue if the provinces had to part with the hospital services. They do not want to create a central health service, but they want to meet the provinces. I maintain that the health services should not be centralised, but that they should be spread out in the interests of the country and of the people. Let each province look to its own services, and let the local bodies, such as the municipalities, look to infectious diseases in local areas and villages. Let the Public Health Department look after infectious diseases outside the towns. Let us utilise existing services and build up on them, and do not let us go in for such a big revolution. I may not now discuss the proposals of the Gluckman Commission, because I would then touch on a motion regarding which the chairman of the commission has given notice. But to accept such a scheme as the Leader of the Opposition wishes to—because he says we should accept it and not reject it—would sow discord amongst the medical profession and the public. The public do not mind whether it is a state medical service, or whether the services are centralised, provided they have those health services that they want to have.

Do you represent the medical profession in this connection?

A great many of them.

And do they not want a national service?

I believe that I can speak on behalf of a great many members of the medical profession. I was a member of the Planning Board, and I know what the Eastern Transvaal thinks about it, because I was chairman of the association there. We discussed these matters. It is not the policy of the medical profession that that proposal should be accepted, and that there cannot be any better scheme. Many years ago the medical profession accepted the scheme for health insurance, and also the expansion of existing services, so that every section of the community will receive the necessary medical assistance when there is sickness. A great deal is said in this report about the prevention of sickness, and not so much about its treatment. It is not so easy to prevent sickness as is suggested in this report. We can, of course, do it in the case of infectious diseases, but it does not apply to all diseases. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) spoke here yesterday about such diseases as typhus and smallpox as being caused by undernourishment Typhus is caused by a louse, and whether a man is well-nourished or not makes no difference. In the case of smallpox if a man is not vaccinated he may contract the disease however well he is nourished. That is not a matter for argument. Undernourishment is not the cause of all those diseases. Those are the few points that I want to mention in connection with the second part of the motion of censure of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want now to go into the other part of the motion. Enough mud has been slung around already. It is unfortunate that this commission did not also investigate the diseases that we can describe as Chauvinism. That is a disease from which the Leader of the Opposition is definitely suffering, and the symptoms of it are contracted inspiration with excessive Nationalist politics. The Public Health Commission should have carried out an investigation into that, because that disease produces more harm in the country than any other.

I must say that I was bitterly disappointed at the contemptuous attitude which the Minister of Agriculture adopted in connection with this motion. Yesterday he was absent while an important discussion in connection with the question of food was proceeding. Today he is here but he is walking about in the passages while the discussion continues here. I, however, wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on the fact that he has at last succeeded in persuading the Minister of Agriculture to come in. We like to see that when important matters are discussed the Minister concerned is in his seat. I must say that a year ago I was just as bitterly disappointed when the Prime Minister made this appointment of a Minister of Agriculture. I can well believe that at the time he was in a very difficult position. He had to make an appointment and we know that he did not have a large choice. That always makes an appointment difficult. May I advise the Prime Minister that when next he has to make such an appointment we on this side of the House will be able to give him a few dozen people who can be Minister of Agriculture.

You yourself for example.

No, but also not an empty tin like you. I just want to say this, that the Minister of Agriculture makes a much better Minister of Starvation than a Minister of Agriculture. We have now for almost a year given him an opportunity to show what he has in him, and we hope that in view of the fact that he is young he will perhaps be able to gain an insight into farming. But we as farmers are bitterly disappointed in him. For almost a year now he has had schooling in agriculture, and he has returned here as one of the most obstinate and most abusive Ministers we have ever seen and that I say especially with an eye to the manner in which he wishes to contradict the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition pointed to the inefficiency and unpreparedness and laxity of the Government in connection with distribution and provision of foodstuffs for the nation, and in his reply the Minister of Agriculture showed his ignorance anew. He ranted here and in a discourteous manner tried to deny what the Leader of the Opposition had said. The Leader of the Opposition stressed the fact that food was being exported from the country while our own people suffered, and the Minister of Agriculture tried to deny it by pointing to the fact that he had eventually succeeded in importing food. What are the facts? Those facts were mentioned here. I just wish to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture: Is he not conscious of the fact that in Durban thousands of cattle were slaughtered and exported; is he not conscious of the fact that more thousands were slaughtered, and that the meat was canned and exported; is he not conscious of the fact that shiploads of foodstuff were exported to feed people overseas; can he deny that? If he denies it let him prove it. The Minister of Agriculture is going backwards. When one has to deal with agricultural matters one must go forward or else there is the danger that the nation will suffer famine. Let us take the statistics for December, 1944. In that month the quantity of beef in the cold storages was 18,361 quarters, and about 52,000 mutton carcases. That is less than the position was for the same month in 1943, notwithstanding the increase in population and notwithstanding the drought and all such matters. As regards cheese and butter there is a great shortage, and the Minister admitted that in answer to a quesion I recently asked him. But he did not tell us how great the shortage is. Notwithstanding that, he admitted that recently cheese and butter had again been exported. In 1943, 642,971 lbs. of cheese and 2,060,170 lbs. of butter were exported. In 1944, something like 291,000 lbs. of cheese and 1,633,282 lbs. of butter were exported. That does not even include supplies to ships, which amounted to thousands of pounds. Does not this support the fact mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, namely that the stuff was exported, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Agriculture again imported? Is that the solution of the shortage we have? They import tinned meat. If the Minister of Agriculture finds himself amongst the housewives they will throw those tins of meat at him. They do not want to see the stuff any more. Then he commandeers slaughter cattle, while he says that there are no slaughter cattle. He even went so far as to provide the people with whale meat, and his other solution is meatless days. Is he trying to solve the problem by letting the people remain without food? It makes one think of the Jew who gave his horse less and less fodder and eventually only stalks, and later he complained that the animal had almost managed to do without food but that it had died.

That is a very old story.

That is the policy which the Minister obviously wishes to follow. The result of this kind of solution on the part of the Minister is the queues of women wanting meat, butter, cheese and such things. In some cases the women are not even trying to obtain the stuff any more. Nevertheless it is said that the food is there. The women know that they cannot obtain it. The attitude of the Minister makes me think of the man who was certified as dead by the doctor. When the undertaker wanted to bury him he told the undertaker that he was not dead. But the latter replied: No, you are dead, because the doctor said so. He wishes to tell us that this is not the position, while we can see what the position is. No, we see that the nation must do without the food it so urgently needs. People must be satisfied with half a pound of butter per week per family while it is being exported. Children go to school with a bit of dry bread while butter is being exported. We can tell the Minister of Agriculture what the cause is of the shortage of food. It is in the first place the unsympathetic way in which the Minister is treating the farmers. He has no sympathy with the farmers and when they approach him with their difficulties, he turns a deaf ear, with the result that all the matters tackled by the Minister are shipwrecked. The other mistake is ignorance on his part. Perhaps we cannot blame him for that, but for almost a year now he has been schooled in agricultural matters, and we received him back here as an obstinate person; how can one try to teach a man like that? I want to ask the Prime Minister to give us another Minister of Agriculture as soon as possible. The other difficulty is the uneconomic prices paid to the farmer. It has on many occasions been shown here how much damage was suffered by the farmers. The farmers cannot earn a living in those circumstances. I wish more particularly to refer to a special case, namely the dairy industry. I Last year I went to the Minister, and the Dairymen’s Association of the Free State sent a telegram to the Minister in which he was earnestly reminded of the unparalleled drought. I made it plain to him that the farmers would have to face the winter without fodder. Fodder was especially dear. All this was brought to his notice. With much difficulty the Minister was persuaded to appoint a Commission of Enquiry. Eventually that commission visited Ladybrand. The farmers laid their difficulties before the Commission. The Commission immediately got into touch with the Department and brought it to the notice of the Minister that the price of milk had to be increased by 3d. or 4d. What was the result? The farmers waited for months and months and the first they heard from the Commission was that the price of milk had been reduced by 2d. That is the sort of assistance the dairy farmers received. It is small wonder that the farmers chased their cattle into the veld and allowed them to go dry. Thousands were put on the market and a large number of cheese factories almost had to cease work because of insufficient supplies of milk. After almost a year of investigation into the prices of dairy products by the so-called Commission, the Minister was recently asked again whether the Commission had completed its report, and what the Minister’s decision was about the findings of the Commission. The Minister’s reply to the first part of the question was—

Just image. The Commission was busy with the investigation for almost a year, and now the investigation is still incomplete. When will, the Commission ever bring out its report? Evidently only when all the cows have dried up. During this year I put a further question to the Minister of Agriculture, whether he would raise the price of the producer as a result of the drought and owing to the fact that the farmers were producing at a loss. The reply of the Minister was again—

After a year the matter is again being investigated. I would ask the Minister not to kill the dairy industry. He makes me think of the townsman who wished to go in for poultry farming. He put a hen in a coop and every day he went to see whether she had not laid an egg; but he never fed her, with the result that she died.

That is also an old story.

Yes, that hon. member would perhaps like to hatch the egg. The dairy farmers ask the Minister of Agriculture for protection, or else they will go to the wall. During the world war the price of milk rose to 18d. Now it is 11¾d. in the winter months and 9¾d. in the summer months, while fodder is double the price it was. Labour is expensive and costs of production much higher The demand for milk exists, for cheese and for butter, and the Government admits that there is a shortage of cheese in the country amounting to 25 per cent. and up to 50 per cent. The farmers ask for an increase of 3d. or 4d., and the consumer will not in the least mind paying this, because else they will have to do without the article. In December there was about 400,000 lbs. less cheese in the cold storages and more than 2 million lbs. less butter than in the previous year. This shows how serious the position is in connection with dairy products. The industry demands protection from the Minister. I should like to quote what the manufacturers of dairy products say in connection with this matter. They sent a telegram to the Minister in connection with the industry. That telegram reads as follows—[translation]

The Association of Creameries, fully representative of the manufacturers of butter, cheese, tinned and powdered milk, wish to draw the Government’s immediate attention to the serious decrease in the production of essential dairy products as a result of the great drop in the production of milk and cream for the factories. It is the opinion of the Association that the decreased production is not only due to temporary drought conditions but above all to a steady and increasing change-over by farmers from milk production to other branches of farming which are less troublesome and offer a better and an immediate cash reward. Dairying represents one of the chief branches of agriculture and takes a leading place as regards steadiness and productivity. In the interests of the whole nation it is essential that this very important branch should receive the Government’s immediate and just protection, with the object of its survival and the prevention of long-term damage in the future.

Not only the farmers but also the manufacturers of dairy products confirm what I said here, but notwithstanding that the Minister is trying to leave this industry out in the cold. I want to warn him, and at the same time to request him, to do away with this pistol of margarine. That is the solution which the Minister seeks. The farmers have always guarded against artificial butter because it will mean the downfall of the dairy industry. Now the Minister says that he is going to allow the manufacture of margarine, and that he will immediately have 12,000 lbs. manufactured or Imported. The dairy farmers want nothing else but an economic price and they also want nothing else but fodder for their animals, and for that reason they are asking that the price should be raised. It is national food and it is the duty of the Minister to see to it that he does not solve this problem by means of margarine. I said that there is a state of emergency in the country. Just recently we have had two mealie crop failures. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Agriculture said that there were 200,000 additional morgen ploughed in the past year, we fear that there will not be enough for the 2 million Europeans and 7 or 8 million natives in this country. There are members on the opposite side who try to tell us that there is maize in the country. Thousands of bags of mealies were imported into Basutoland and I hope that the hon. Minister will not deny it. Maize was exported from this country. We who live on the border had to import maize from the Transvaal. Everything was exported. Basutoland is not part of the Union and consequently such food should not be exported to Basutoland. Another matter is this: There is no fodder for the animals; that is also being exported. There is no poultry feed. They say there are no eggs, but a fowl cannot lay eggs if it is not fed. Notwithstanding that, food is being exported. Another matter I wish to speak about is wheat. In the Free State there is a total wheat crop failure, and what did the Minister do in connection with this matter to meet the wheat farmer? Yes, he did something. In December last there was 17,500 tons less wheat on hand than in December, 1943. Nevertheless the Minister thought he had really done something. What did he do? He promised to give relief to indigent farmers by enabling them to buy seed wheat to a maximum of 20 bags at 4 per cent. interest, at a price of 45s. to 47s. per bag. That is what you receive from the Minister. That is the encouragement the farmer receives after he has practically had three crop failures in the Free State. He must now pay 45s. to 47s. per bag for seed wheat while he must sell his wheat at 30s. and 35S., and in addition to that he must pay 4 per cent. interest on the capital. Why cannot the Minister see to it that the farmers are subsidised in this respect, that they get seed wheat and in so doing save the country from the calamity of famine which is staring us in the face? I hope that the Minister will consider this matter.

He does not know what you are saying. He is asleep.

He is of course on the point of losing his post, so it will not make much difference to him. Everything is more expensive today. The farmer’s labour is more expensive; machinery is 100 per cent. more expensive and in addition to that you have a drought. I hope that the Prime Minister will see to it that a change is made in the Portfolio of Agriculture and that he will give us a Minister of Agriculture who knows something about the matter.

I am rather anxious about the empty stomachs of hon. members of the Opposition and I should like to move the adjournment of this debate quite soon, but I just want to say this. The hon. member for Klerkdorp (Mr. Wilkens) was most upset about certain interjections I made while the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was speaking. I can give hon. members of the Opposition the guarantee that when I attack them or interject remarks, such attacks or interjections will be merely of a political nature and of political importance, and not such dirty, low, mean attacks such as those made on me last year.

Order, order,

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Good. I will withdraw them.

Make an apology.

The hon. member must not only withdraw those words but he must apologise to the House.

I apologise—I do not mind. But when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad—I was not in the House—last year called me a product of the Johannesburg slums the hon. member for Klerksdorp did not move a finger to say something about it. When the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) made an attack upon me, the hon. member for Klerksdorp again did not move a finger; and let me tell the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and also the hon. member for Klerksdorp that I am at any time prepared to expose my past to them, and what is more I am proud to belong to the United Party and the United Party need not be ashamed of my past. That is all the time I intend to waste.

Have you asked them whether they are ashamed to have you?

I do not want to waste the valuable time of the House any further. At this stage I wish to move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 5th February.