Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I said that I intended to deal with a matter affecting defence, something we felt was an important facet of defence, and that I would endeavour to put some constructive proposals to the Government on this matter which we believed would be in the best interest of the defence of the country. I had got to the stage of stating that in the two greatest countries in the world combating Communism to-day, the U.S.A. and Britain, they had taken action on lines which would fully meet the criticism we levelled in the second leg of our amendment, namely that Parliament, as the authority which has to vote the money for defence, should be furnished with sufficient information to enable it to judge not only on the value received for that expenditure but also as to the necessity for the general usage of the money voted. Both the U.S.A. and Britain have accepted the principle that Parliament, which has to vote the money required, has a definite responsibility as the national watchdog firstly to satisfy itself that the expenditure is necessary and, secondly, to see that full value is received by the State for the money which Parliament has appropriated. In the case of both those countries not only the particular committees to which the authority is delegated by Parliament, but the Members of Parliament or of the Senate of the U.S.A. are themselves given detailed information which enables them in turn, when the proposals come before them for financial sanction, to carry out their functions both before the money is voted and after it is spent.

In our own case, I just want to ask this question. What does Parliament get? What have we got to tell us what we have got for last year’s record Budget? What have we got to guide us to-day with regard to coming to a decision as to the necessity for a still further increase in the Defence Vote? We have the general picture and we have some general statements, but in our opinion they do not go far enough from the parliamentary point of view, to give the information which Parliament should have. We are clinging to a fetish long abandoned in other countries in respect of the need for secrecy, a thing which has been abandoned by most of the other large countries, especially the two I mentioned, in respect of everything but the very highest level of national strategic planning or regarding certain of their long-term scientific experiments. Outside of that, the Parliaments of those countries, and indeed the citizens themselves, are placed in the fullest possession of any available information to guide them. As a high-ranking officer from overseas with whom I discussed this matter recently said, “We have decided that secrecy no longer exists and that the other fellow knows about it while we are still in the stage of thinking about it”. They have found by practice and experience that there is a decided build-up in a nation’s morale and confidence by getting official information given to them as to what their country is doing in regard to defence, instead of having to pick up odd bits of information, often distorted, which drift in from various channels. I would commend that viewpoint to the Minister of Defence, who appears, in my opinion, to be just a little overcautious in this regard. I can understand the Minister’s view, but I still think, as many of us do, that in this regard he is a little overcautious in regard to both defence information and the use of responsible newspaper channels of the country through which the people of the country as a rule are informed. There is no need to emphasize that aspect of responsibility. We had an example of that only a week ago where certain newspapers fully reacted and respected the Minister’s request for responsible action, and certain others either took no notice of it at all or never even troubled to find out whether they should have dealt publicly with the matter. But that is water under the bridge. But it is an aspect that I would commend to the Minister for consideration.

I want to come back to the other proposals. Up to 1960 our Parliament voted plus-minus R650,000,000 for defence, and I believe that only the hon. the Minister himself and some of his Service chiefs have any accurate knowledge of how little South Africa really received by way of effective added security for that heavy expenditure. The hon. the Minister himself and his Service chiefs know the state of Defence affairs when he took over. There has been an improvement since then. That is one of the examples I quote in support of the proposals I want to make that Parliament should be better informed and that at that stage it should have been better informed as to what was going on in Defence. The country itself can get a fair idea of the extent to which there was a wastage of Defence spending and assets from the tremendous increase that it has had to face since then in Defence expenditure. Those of us who are able to keep some form of contact with defence matters, feel that a much wiser, more efficient and better use is being made of those assets to-day, but that is only in certain individual cases. I am speaking to-day on behalf of Parliament itself, particularly from the Opposition point of view. Sir, it is every bit as necessary to move forward and streamline our system for exercising parliamentary financial control over Defence expenditure as it is to see that the defences of the country are moved forward in step with modern technique, modern equipment, modern training and modern methods of warfare. This itself is a parallel case. If we do the one without the other we are covering failure. Both the United States and Britain place the highest priority on keeping their respective parliaments informed, not only as to the financial aspect but on all phases of their defence organization and expenditure. In order to do this, amongst other things, they issue reports popularly known as a White Paper on Defence but which actually is officially entitled, in the case of the United States of America, “statement by the Secretary of Defence placed before the House’s Armed Services Committee” and in the case of Britain, “A Statement on Defence to accompany the Navy, Army and Air Force Estimates”, The United States statement for the current year 1963-4 covers 164 pages of the most accurate, intimate, detailed information for the guidance of the Senate; it covers not only the Defence proposals and expenditure for 1964 but it sets before its Senate an outline of the main aspects of the United States Defence Programme between 1964 and 1968 in order to enable them to form a judgment with regard to the advances which are being made. It not only does that, but it takes into account many other aspects not associated in the military sense with the fighting forces but associated directly with the impact of Defence expenditure on the nation. The British statement for the present year is one of 86 pages and also deals with practically every fact of Britain’s armed forces. Again we get the most initiate information of developments, Defence experiments and projected movements, and what the aim is for a number of years ahead. Both White Papers which are available to Members of Parliament and the Senate of the United States not only deal with the actual moneys voted by their respective parliaments but practically give every reason that is advanced in support of the proposals as well as the results and the general plan that they aim to achieve. They cover the training systems in force, the long-term planning for years ahead, the replacements to be faced, the use to be made of the material as it becomes obsolescent and in the case of the U.S.A. statement, which is much more far-reaching than the British one, it also deals with the economic benefits and the economic dangers which arise as the result of the heavy unproductive expenditure, as they call it, on Defence, as well as the impact to be expected internationally, nationally and locally as a result of the proposals placed before Parliament. Both reports in turn give detailed comparisons and the reasons for the variations in the annual expenditure. In both cases they comprise a most instructive and valuable guide to every Member of Parliament when dealing with Defence Estimates placed before the House. Each arm of the fighting services is dealt with separately. They give their Parliament all the necessary information to enable it to exercise a sound and considered judgment in dealing with expenditure and to see that the nation gets value for the money spent. Naturally in our case the expenditure is much smaller and any attempt to follow the principle of these two White Papers would naturally have to be adapted to our very much smaller expenditure on Defence, but the underlying principle, the principle of giving to Parliament the information that it should have to enable it to carry out its task, remains unaltered, and the principle of the effect of Defence, of the results to Defence, remains the same whether you are spending in billions as they are or in millions as we are. The underlying principle, the effective security of the State, remains the same. I think the hon. the Minister and his side will agree that we on this side over the past years have demonstrated that politics play no part in our approach to Defence. We do not hesitate to criticize, we do not hesitate to suggest improvements and we do not hesitate to hit hard when the time is ripe for it, but our broad policy is that in the matter of Defence planning and administration, the security of our Republic is a national matter and not a sectional one. It is on that basis and speaking on behalf of the official Opposition that I want to put this proposal before the Government. I want to put forward this request and commend it to the very serious consideration of the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Minister of Finance, all three of whom are Government leaders who between them share the main responsibility for directing the defence policy of the country and for ensuring its efficiency and that it is run as far as is consistent with defence requirements on business lines. All defence expenditure in the long term, apart from providing security, is unproductive expenditure, but is just as necessary as insurance on your home, but, we hope, just as unproductive of results in the long run. We do not hope for a war, any more than we hope for a fire when we insure our homes, but we have to be ready for it in case it does happen. Our proposal is that Parliament should establish an official Parliamentary Select Committee on Defence, whose duty amongst other things should include the examination of all aspects of the defence organization involving the expenditure of money appropriated or to be appropriated by Parliament, and including major new proposals involving very heavy financial, economic or industrial commitments which in turn involve parliamentary sanction; that examination to be conducted within the limits which are possible in the matter such as Defence, prior to Parliament being finally committed to such expenditure. Such a committee, if appointed by the House, should have at its disposal a White Paper or a statement on Defence following generally the lines and the range covered by the British or the American Defence statements to which I referred, but limited naturally to the much smaller scope and range which would apply in our own case, but relatively equally important in its range and coverage to the Republic’s own defence programme. The committee to have power to hear and question the Secretary for Defence and others responsible, in a similar manner to that permitted by both the British Parliament and the American Senate, much on the same lines as witnesses would be questioned by, say, the Select Committee on Public Accounts or the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. Copies of the White Paper to be made available to Members of Parliament prior to the discussion of the annual Defence Budget so as to assist them when dealing with defence estimates. I believe, Sir, that the present time is the most appropriate for making such a proposal. Not only is defence spending on a new high level, a level at which the Minister of Finance warns the country that it must be expected to remain for quite a time, but in our isolated state, coupled with the unsettled conditions in both international and internal affairs, the importance of a strong defence policy and a strong defence organization cannot be overestimated. But not only do those important considerations apply, but at the present time a special senior committee of Parliament is going into the whole question of revision of parliamentary procedure with the object of speeding up and also bringing about greater efficiency in the work of Parliament. We on this side believe that the establishment of a committee, generally on the lines that I have put forward, combined with the introduction of a White Paper to accompany the estimates, will fit very well into the deliberations of the present Revision of Rules Committee, and that the acceptance of the principle of these proposals, on the general lines suggested, would not only speed up discussion of the estimates but ensure a more effective consideration of defence expenditure and also assist in establishing a link between the defence organization and Parliament on the one hand and the people of the Republic on the other. A link which will have a definite value in building up public confidence in the national security provided by the country’s defence organization. Sir, I do not want this committee to be confused with the procedure at present adopted whereby the Select Committee on Public Accounts examines certain items of defence expenditure reported on in the Annual Report of the Auditor-General. That is something quite different and it deals with a very limited range of problems long after the money has been spent and generally too late at that stage to be able to take effective action on that particular matter. It may well be that those items can also be referred to a Select Committee such as I have suggested, thus relieving the load on the Public Accounts Committee.

Do you want the committee to sit before the expenditure is incurred or afterwards?

Before the expenditure is incurred, broadly following the lines established by these two countries that I have mentioned. The responsibility of the proposed committee should be much wider than that of a normal Parliamentary Select Committee, to enable it to examine and report upon proposed new expenditure before Parliament is finally committed to it. I think that more or less answers the Minister’s question. It should also examine the expenditure incurred and the results obtained from such expenditure. It is clear that senior members on the Government’s side are themselves beginning to become concerned about certain aspects of defence administration. To illustrate that let me just quote the motion which appears on the Order Paper of 18 January at page 20 in the name of the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). He himself is a member of one of Parliament’s most important Select Committees, the Public Accounts Committee, and his motion says—

The hon. member had a second proposal on somewhat different lines but also dealing with the same principle. Although hon. members opposite approach the matter on slightly different lines to the lines on which we have approached it to-day, they show that there is an awareness on their part of the necessity for more effective parliamentary control over defence spending. We welcome that attitude. It follows in general the spirit of our proposals. In these days of isolation the need for the best that we can provide in Defence has never been greater. The hon. the Minister of Finance himself is reported in the Rand Daily Mail of 25 March to have stated over the week-end—

Even more important was the warning that was given by the Commandant-General himself when he addressed the Johannesburg Afrikaanse Sakekamer last week. This high-ranking officer, who must know the inner history of what he is talking about, warned the country that subversive warfare had already begun in Southern Africa. He said—

Overshadowing even those grave warnings is the serious challenge that is being made to law and order which the House has been dealing with in the last day or two—the time of crisis referred to by the hon. the Prime Minister; the equally grave warning given by our Minister of External Affairs himself and by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Sir, what we have put forward is something new in procedure and machinery of Parliament, but we believe that it is a constructive proposal, a forward move, which we may find is just as valuable to the Republic as it has been proved to be in the case of the two great nations I have referred to. It should not only assist Parliament in discharging its duty of exercising financial control over expenditure, but should also be a valuable aid to those who are responsible for the defence of the country. Speaking with the full authority of this side of the House I would commend this proposal to the most earnest consideration of the Government in what I am convinced is not only the best interest of the security of the Republic but also of those who are charged with the very grave duty of building up and controlling the defence of this country.

Mr. Speaker …

Ah!

I am glad to see that I am as popular as ever before. Those interjections at least show that hon. members opposite take notice of me.

Mr. Speaker, while we are dealing here with defence, and whilst I have always admired my hon. friend over there to some extent for the attitude he adopts in regard to our defence— because that is something which belongs to all of us—there is something else which is just as important as defence, and that is the food of the people, and in this regard we have one nightmare in South Africa, the periodic droughts we have here. I want to express my sympathy with those people in the Northern Transvaal and in other parts of South Africa whose cattle have been suffering for the last two or three years from foot-and-mouth disease and who have had to cope with terrible droughts. We realize in what position those people find themselves. It is not something for which they are responsible; it is due to the vagaries of nature, and it is our duty to devise plans to assist them as far as possible. As I am the chairman of the Farmers’ Group of this party—and when I refer to the Farmers’ Group I mean not only the farmers in this House but also those in the Senate—I should like to read out a statement here to-day. We are, of course, a strong party. We have various study groups to study the problems in all branches of agriculture. We want to do something to help all those people who find themselves in difficulties, and therefore we made a proposal which I will read to the House later. There are really two proposals, one for immediate consideration and the other for later consideration. As far as the first is concerned, the Government has agreed to take these steps. Although I have not consulted the Prime Minister, I have in fact consulted his Minister, and I want to say immediately that they were very sympathetic.

In regard to the first part of the suggestions, viz. the immediate action to be taken in regard to the economic position of our farmers, we have had an interview with Ministers Uys, Dönges and Sauer. “Minister Uys appreciates that attitude and the actions of the group namely that in general things are not going badly with agriculture, but at the same time realizes, together with the group, that certain farmers in certain areas are in a critical and even parlous position. He ascribes those conditions particularly to natural and climatic conditions such as foot-and-mouth disease, drought, etc., and also to a large extent to the uneconomic farming units. He is giving instruction to the Department of State Advances to ensure that nobody is sold out as the result of arrear interest and capital redemption, except in obviously deliberate cases where farmers leave the land permanently or refuse to reply to the representations made by State Advances. Where creditors institute sales, State Advances will buy the land at the lowest possible valuation and resettle the farmer concerned on the land with a lower capital investment. This is a deviation from the former procedure whereby State Advances made profits from these sales. Where sales have taken place, investigation will be instituted as to why farmers still remain responsible for the unpaid portion of their debts. Further investigation will be instituted with regard to the suspension of interest obligations. Minister Dönges will request the Land Bank also not to order any sales to be held as the result of arrear interest and capital repayments. Minister Paul Sauer has already, having realized their position, given instructions that the necessary legal amendments should be prepared to give the Department and the Minister the discretionary power, even after four years’ arrear payments, to grant further extensions to settlers in terms of all three sections.”

These proposals have already been put into operation and we want to tell the Minister that the farmers are very grateful. I think even the farmer members opposite will agree that these people were in such a position that something had to be done immediately. I just want to say that we welcome the acceptance of these proposals, but we went further and expressed our views in regard to future policy. There is already the Cabinet Committee which has been appointed by the Government to investigate the matter.

Then I come to the second portion, viz. the recommendations made by the Farmers’ Group to the Ministers concerned in regard to the possible long-term solution—

1. 1 (a) The Farmers’ Group request the Cabinet still during this Session to establish a full-fledged Department of Agricultural Finance in such a way that all farmers’ assistance loans, hypothec loans, crop loans, emergency and drought loans, loans from Agricultural Technical Services and Water Affairs, and also subsidies, will be coordinated under one Department.
2. 2 (a) That investigation be instituted into the necessity for co-ordinating loans granted by the Department of Lands with this proposed Department.

Hon. members will therefore see that we leave it to the Cabinet and the Cabinet Committee to use their own discretion. Then I come to the following one—

1. 2 (b) Agricultural Finance Board: That a Government-appointed autonomous Finance Board, on which practical farmers and, inter alia, the Land Bank, the Departments of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Finance, and Economic Affairs will be represented, will replace the Farmers’ Assistance Board as the head of the proposed Financing Department.
2. 3 (a) That the Farmers’ Assistance Committees be converted into Agricultural Finance Supervisory and Advisory Committees to deal with all local matters on behalf of the Agricultural Finance Board.
3. 3 (b) The Agricultural Technical Services extension officers and/or stock inspectors will, on behalf of the board and in consultation with the local committees, see to the necessary inspection and supervision.
4. 3 (c) Where lands inspectors are available they will be co-opted to the aforementioned committees in an advisory capacity.

Then I come to the functions and the jurisdiction of the board and of the Department—

1. 1. To apply as a comprehensive scheme agricultural financing for Category 3 farmers in terms of the report of the Study Group investigating agricultural credit.
2. 2. Wherever necessary, to transfer farmers from uneconomic units to economic units to be provided by the Department of Lands on its closer settlements or under Section 23.
3. 3. Where farmers are in this way removed from uneconomic units, to credit the price valuation of the aforementioned units against the economic purchase price of the land on which those farmers are settled.
4. 4. To consolidate uneconomic units and again to make them available to the farmer at an economic purchase price.
5. 5. To supervise and to give guidance in regard to soil conservation works and general farming methods according to the production potentialities.
6. 6. Where circumstances demand it, to order the suspension or partial suspension of accruing interest.
7. 7. The above-mentioned proposals will result in certain legal amendments.

We feel that these recommendations deserve serious attention with a view to our future policy. I am very glad to be able to say that the Farmers’ Group unanimously adopted this report. I also want to say that our three Ministers, although they did not accept the report as a whole, in fact said that they would welcome the principle of such legislation. I feel that as a farmers’ group we have done something here of which we can be proud. These proposals concern the financial aspect of the matter; we will discuss the practical aspect of the matter later, which is already in operation.

Mr. Speaker, there are two practical ways of combating drought. The one is water conservation and the other is to combat soil erosion, and I do not think that there is a farmer in South Africa who would like the legislation in regard to combating soil erosion to be repealed, because whereas formerly our water all flowed down to the sea and our best soil was washed away, we now find that these erosion works have done wonders, and in many respects it helps to keep our people on the land. I know of cases where the water table was very low, say 20 years ago, but in areas where erosion works have been tackled on a large scale the water is again coming back and we find that even the fountains are running again. In the north-west, as hon. members know, and also in other areas, the water table is so low that whereas 20 years ago one could bore for 100 feet and find water, to-day one has to go down 300 or 400 feet. The position is that all the water which formerly flowed into pools was pumped out with the result that the water table sank, and therefore erosion works are absolutely essential.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for the great scheme he has given us, the Orange River scheme. I think if there is one thing for which we are very grateful, it is for the Orange River scheme as a whole. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to start a quarrel here over the question as to who should get the credit for this scheme, but I just want to say that 20 years ago already we realized that we would have to make use of the Orange River. We first spoke about the Orange-Fish River scheme. I want to give all the credit here to one man who knew that it could never be done unless the water laws were changed. I want to give the credit for that to the late Adv. Strijdom. He was the first person to say that we would have to amend the water laws. I think the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) was one of the members who served on the committee which discussed the 1956 Act. That Act gave the Government the right to use water in the way it thought best. We must thank that committee for the good work they did. It was preceded by a commission. That commission also did very sound work. If it were not for that, we might just as well have forgotten about the Orange River scheme, because the Government to-day has the right to take that water to another valley. Adv. Strijdom was the person who said that before we could take water to the Fish River we should first amend the laws. I want to praise him for that to-day.

It was in this House that I made the first speech to the effect that the State should be master over the water resources of the country in order to put them to the best possible use. The then Prime Minister took it up and he then appointed that committee which was composed of members from both sides of the House. My hon. friends opposite made their contribution on that committee, because we regarded the matter as being in the national interest and not as a political matter.

I just want to say that had we not had a Prime Minister and a Minister of Water Affairs such as we have to-day, we would have had to wait much longer. I remember that the matter was originally put to General Smuts round about 1946, and he said that his children might see it one dav; he said that the Orange-Fish River scheme would be tackled one day. We, however, have wonderful engineers. We want to thank our engineers for the splendid work they have done. The question was asked the other day as to when we would start with this work. Mr. Speaker, the work will be done. I have often said that when once the Orange River scheme is completed the Karoo will be changed into a flower garden. I hope I will still see it. I am convinced that the Eastern Province and the Free State and those other areas where there is a shortage of water will one day be the richest and the best parts of South Africa. Then there will also be an end to the depopulation of the platteland.

The preliminary work for that tunnel is being done. But when one considers, Sir, that it will be a tunnel of 51 miles, and that camps and roads will have to be provided and other preliminary work will have to be done, we realize that it will not be completed soon. There must be co-operation with the various divisional councils. But I am convinced that when once that tunnel is completed the Karoo will blossom again and the valleys round about Cradock will be the Tennessee Valley of South Africa. I have had the honour of visiting the Tennessee Valley, and the nature of that valley closely resembles that part of the Karoo. Whereas the Tennessee Valley consisted of three of the poorest areas of America, it has to-day become the richest and the best area in America, just because it got water and power, so much so that the other parts of America are envious of the power it has, because hydro-electric power is the cheapest.

I hope that I will still experience the day under this Prime Minister and his Minister of Water Affairs to see that water flow and to see the Karoo blossoming. The people in my part of the country are grateful to the Government. Not only did the Government help the people there, but it bought out the farmers who were in trouble and paid them good prices so that they could re-settle themselves in other areas. On behalf of the Eastern Province, I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of Water Affairs. I want to tell them that we will never forget them. [Interjections.] Just listen to that, Mr. Speaker …

Hon. members should not interrupt that hon. member! [Laughter.]

I just want to say that there are a few of our friends over there whom I do not want to exclude. They did their duty, although they never pleaded for this great and splendid undertaking. But in their time they did make propaganda for more water, and I do not want to ignore them. They are also human beings. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) also threw in his weight.

Mr. Speaker, having uttered these few words I think I have done my duty. There are many other hon. members who will follow me. I just hope that my hon. friends opposite will not show a lack of sympathy for those people who have endured these droughts. Some of them are so poor to-day that they barely have food to eat. I hope that the measures envisaged by us will assist them to become worthy citizens of South Africa again.

It is a particularly great privilege for me to-day first of all, before I begin my speech, on behalf of those drought-stricken areas that I know intimately and where I reside, to convey our heartfelt thanks to the two Ministers who were asked by that hon. member over there to resign at the commencement of this debate. I was keen that they should have laughed louder so that I could get an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, but now they are silent.

What is there to laugh about?

We say thank you very much to those Ministers for we know what is going on in the souls of those farmers. We lived with them for three years during the drought and we represented them before these Ministers. We learned to know the souls of these Ministers; their willingness and preparedness to combat the drought together with the farmers; those farmers who greatly needed their assistance. To us it is one of the ugliest things to hear that a motion has been introduced in this House insulting those Ministers by asking them to resign. It was a painful experience. But, Mr. Speaker, we are firmly convinced that they are White, that their conduct is White, that their hearts are White, and that they will be received as White by the farmers in the stricken areas. Unlike my hon. friend who introduced the motion, in respect of whom, if we take everything into account, his deeds, his words, his works, himself, there is only one thing left over that is White, and that is the outside of his head. We have met this Minister at all times— while they were tired, while they had time …

They are still tired.

As you were born, yes. We met them at a time when there was an opportunity to meet them, but we also met them when truly there was no opportunity, and when we overtaxed them by expecting them to talk to us and to listen to us. Never did we see by word or deed or facial expression that we were unwelcome. I would be committing a sin against all the farmers of the northern Transvaal, if I did not also convey to all the officials of the Departments with whom we had to deal during this time of crisis, our profound and sincere gratitude for the manner in which they received us in the days when we were in great distress, as we still are. We felt that together with their Ministers they were standing by our side. We had no hesitation in going to them at any time.

I should like to proceed now to say what I have to say to this House. After all the thanks that has been conveyed to the Departments and the State for all the assistance we have had, it is nevertheless clear to us that there is something wrong somewhere. It is still clear to us that the assistance that is offered and has been offered, does not always have the effect it ought to have. The retrogression which the State is using all its endeavours to try to stop does nevertheless occur again from time to time. It is threatening to become more effective. We think there is a plan to stop it or at least to overcome it without involving the State in extra expense or without us having to spend much time on it.

I feel that we should utilize the smaller sources of income that are at the disposal of every farmer. It will assist in bridging that time of need. We think that in many instances we have overlooked those smaller sources of revenue in the headlong rush after greater incomes that are required to keep pace with the rapid tempo of life, and to keep pace with costs of production. We have overlooked those smaller sources of revenue, and when things are black indeed, it is not easy to notice them. One sees these things when one is calm and can think dispassionately. But when distress knocks at your door, you are not so easily prepared for or so readily susceptible to that which is so necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to stand here explaining the problems to you. We all know them. But what I should like to do is to suggest something, or try to open up something, if I may put it that way, so that we can see if there is not something we can use. I do not want to make a very wise suggestion to you. I merely wish to assure the House that I have pondered this matter very deeply. I have considered everything possible to see whether I could find something. I am bringing it forward here where there are trained brains, scientific brains, people with more experience in that line than I. I ask that we should examine those smaller sources of revenue together, and see whether we cannot utilize them in practice.

Let me mention a few. Mr. Speaker, what has become of the good old method of keeping food in storage for at least one or two years? I do not think there is a single agriculturist here who will not remember how his father, after threshing his wheat, stored at least a two years’ supply of wheat for bread in his store-room. After using the first year’s bread wheat, if he had a fresh harvest, he sold the extra wheat, but never before that time. We know that in the early days it was the primary duty of the farmer to see to it that the food stocks were replenished. Have we not perhaps neglected that? Have we not perhaps lost that fine custom? I think we have.

Mr. Speaker, when I refer to the small farmers, and I say “we”, I should like the House to understand that I am one of them; I am including myself. I live among them; I am one of them and I understand them. I know their souls. That is why I feel justified in saying these things. We have passed by that good old method in the headlong rush to something we cannot use when things become difficult, in the rush towards something which cannot help us through when things go wrong and times are difficult. Now we ask whether it is not possible to return to those days when the store was full. We remember the days when one farmer would not sell any seed or food to another farmer. Seed or wheat was given in exchange for other seed or wheat or other food, or it was given free, but such a thing as selling everything in the store was unknown.

You may perhaps ask why I am emphasizing the food of the farmer so much. I am doing so, Sir, because we say that if those smaller sources of revenue were properly utilized, the money that is spent on food will be available to purchase the essential other items that are required so urgently and that are not grown on the farm. We are entitled to say that the greater portion of a man’s salary in the city goes towards feeding his family. Are we not perhaps guilty of not maintaining our food supplies on the farms as they ought to be maintained? With your consent, Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest a few small things, things we could examine and see whether some good cannot come of it. There is hardly a single farm in those drought-stricken areas where there is not a borehole. Some of those boreholes are so strong that they produce sufficient water to keep a few small vegetable beds going. Why can we not, around such a borehole, grow quickgrass in rows that could be watered— for it requires very little water—on half a morgen of land, planted three times in succession, so that it covers the whole of the growing season? That quickgrass will be one of the most valuable forms of feed on the farm. And if we were to place about eight beehives near that quickgrass, to produce honey, we shall provide food for that family that is one of the most nutritious foodstuffs of all. There will be enough honey left over from those six to eight hives on one and a half morgen to three morgen, to sell in order to buy the necessary foodstuffs which cannot be grown on the farm. A little sacrifice early in the morning and on Saturday afternoons after the bell has rung will provide the farmer with those most valuable items in his home. It will have a reassuring effect, Mr. Speaker. I cannot imagine a more frustrated person in those drought-stricken areas than the mother who sends her children to school in the morning knowing that their tummies are full, but also knowing that they are underfed and that at school they will take an inferior place against the child who is well cared for, and knowing that in future he will take a back seat in the community. Such a body can only drag along to rear children; such a body cannot become anything but sick. When the farmer loses the lightning and the spark in his eye, there is danger for us. As long as the spark is there, we can be very sure that the farmer can see through that eye what is needed for the future. Once he has stored sufficient food, he can withstand a drought, for then there will be more spirit in the body. What is more, a saving will be effected by the storage of food, a saving which will carry him through a drought crisis.

Now I should like to explain the greatest of those sources of income, as I see it, and that is namely those small patches of grazing grass in our country, the hundreds of morgen grazing that is being neglected at the present time. There is grazing alongside rivers in valley farms that cannot be used as a result of the fact that it is too small. That is the truth; it is too small. If we were to ask a man who owns 100 morgen; “What can you do with it? Can you use it as grazing?” then he says no, it is too small. We also say it is too small, but it is not too small to be employed usefully. If all those small patches were added together it would well be utilized. Let me give the example of a farmer who owns a farm of 300 morgen. Suppose now, for example, he cultivates 200 morgen for cash crops and 100 morgen are cultivated not for cash crops, then it is one-third of that farm. Then it is one-third of that farm of 300 morgen; then it is no longer 100 morgen. That is a very great loss already. If we now drive down those fertile valleys, we shall see ten miles out of every 30 miles where the grazing is not being used properly. That is an incalculable loss. We say that that land can be used to prepare stock and animals for the market. We have all that at our disposal. The Department is helping people to acquire stock, and to breed stock. But they do not as yet have a method whereby they can assist the farmer to prepare his stock for the market. Now I say that the farmer can prepare his stock for the market on those 100 morgen although he cannot breed stock there. In the best parts of our country he could keep 20 head of cattle there. If he works economically when the veld is nice, and he gathers all the fodder that could be gathered on the farm, when he has cut the grass inside his enclosed camps where the grass is growing nicely, and has packed it in stacks, and he has gathered all the mealie-stalks and all the peanut hay, that farmer Could make 40 head of cattle ready for the market. There should merely be a regulation that when a farmer can buy breeding stock, he can also buy stock to render ready for the market. His security will be good because when he sells his stock, it will be done by the Land Bank or by the source that helped him to purchase the stock. The risk as regards breeding stock is much greater than the risk involved in the case of stock that is rendered ready for the market, for the stock the farmer purchases for the market, he sells within six months. Accordingly there is very little prospect of loss, or as I see it, no risk of loss. That is the method I adopt. Mr. Speaker, that will be an invaluable supplementary income for the farmer. It will give him courage, and that will convert the object of the Department, the aim to render assistance, into what it really ought to be, namely, to bridge difficult times. This bridging could be brought about in a few years by enabling the farmers to use that which can now not be utilized.

Where our Departments may possibly now follow up this idea, I should like to say that there should be an arrangement between the farmer and the place from which he derives his money, an arrangement to the effect that he does not receive all his profits in a good year; that he may receive only a portion of the profits. The entire selling price is paid over to the bank and the bank then pays the farmer in accordance with the prosperity of the year; the balance is retained by the bank for the farmer. When there is a bad year, he should receive all, and then the bank should wait a year longer. The next year when that farmer again borrows money, he borrows the whole amount less the amount which the bank has retained. That means that within five to six years, with the aid of the bank, the farmer will have saved enough money to easily buy those animals he wishes to prepare for the market on his farm. It will help to make the younger animal in our country ready for the market so that when we have a surplus, our Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing will have a sufficient number of animals ready for the market to export overseas. If now we were to add together all the feed that could be stored, right from the windmill I have mentioned to the money that is made from the making ready for the market of the animals, I am firmly convinced that we shall be able to assist that farmer through a very difficult year of crisis. I am concluding: I say that if we could do that, we shall make more effective those methods that are being applied. We shall also enable that farmer, when the hail has flattened his crop, to know that there is enough food in his home. He will then go along with the lightning in his eye to grease his plough to go and plough his land, a few days after the sum has shone once again. If in this House we would bring that about—and I think we can—we shall render the greatest service to the small farmer of the agricultural population of South Africa.

Yesterday the leader of our small group made certain remarks here in connection with the position of the Coloureds, namely their relation to us, the Whites, and also their relation to the present Government. He suggested certain things which he thought the Government ought to do in regard to the Coloureds not only to retain their goodwill, but also to forge stronger bonds. I should like to dilate upon that; but I do not want to make further reference to the Government’s difficulties. I do not think that all the existing difficulties and all the existing friction and the degree of bad feeling that exists are attributable to the Government and the Government’s policy only. I am one of those people who believe we should be realistic, and face facts, and as a representative of those people I would very much like to see that our relations in this country with those people should become better and better. To illustrate what I have in mind, I should just like to mention a few small things I experienced during the past two months, and draw certain conclusions and inferences from that.

About the middle of February our State President opened the University College of the Western Cape. After opening the college, he travelled to Bellville in a Government car for a banquet in the City Hall given by the Mayor there. What struck me was that on the route through Bellville South, there were hundreds of Coloured children of the primary school standing beside the road, hundreds of them, and when the State President passed in his car, spontaneous applause came from the children. There were no people behind them who said “Now you must applaud and clap your hands”. No, it came from their hearts. That reveals to me that the soul of our Coloured people, the children who are not as yet influenced by other factors, is right. They are South Africans, and they recognize our State President and they form part of our nation. That was fine to me, and I think it must have made a very great impression upon the State President himself to see that.

But now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the other side of the picture where things are beginning to go wrong. Now I am at the wine festival at Paarl, and the State President came there to open the wine festival. Now let us be honest. Our wine industry as it is at the present time has been built up on the labour of our Coloured people, for hundreds of years. I stood somewhere at the back. You know, I am not one who intrudes himself. I always stand somewhere along the back. A little way behind me there were two well-dressed and well-educated Coloureds, as I could see. They did not annoy anybody. They also felt that they wished to hear what our State President said. They also felt it their duty to come to this wine festival, just to come and show their presence there. And while the State President was speaking, a White man—I do not know who he was—standing in front of me turned round for some reason or other and looked at them and said: “Look, you Hottentots do not belong here.” I merely turned round and said to the White man: “My friend, you are now making a very big mistake.” But the two Coloureds turned round and said: “Sir, if we do not belong here, we would rather go.” Actually this is a very small thing, but it is something you find among a section of our White people to-day. Here the two people were standing, one could almost say representative of the wine industry, and a festival is being held, but they are labelled as Hottentots who do not belong there. I am sorry about that.

We also disapprove of that.

I know that all of us here disapprove of it, but many people outside do not know what our feelings are about that, and they want guidance from us, and they turn to us to see what our views are. A few days later I drove down to Hermanus, and I travelled past our plantations there, and at various places there were boards with the notice on them “Picnic: Whites only”. I saw several, but nowhere one that said: “For Coloureds.” This again is a trivial thing, perhaps only thoughtlessness, but I do not think it is quite fair that the Coloured person who can afford a motor-car and who also travels that way, cannot stop somewhere. He also wants to admire the scenery, and for him it is even more necessary than for me to be able to eat his little parcel of food under a tree there. But there it says: “Whites only.” It may be only an oversight, something that could easily be rectified, and which would improve feelings.

Now I come to my own people, my farmer friends, and this also is an incident that occurred within the past two months. I am only talking about things that happened recently. I could of course mention so many examples that the House would become bored. But now I come to my fellow-farmers, and I should like to say candidly that in general this is not the case, but you do get the exceptions, and as regards the Coloureds, we are judged and condemned according to the acts of those exceptions. I should like to tell you about this case. The owner of a big farm, a very well-to-do man—I do not wish to indicate his identity further, but he does not live far from Worcester—sent his Coloured lorry driver to the Cape Town market with a load of potatoes. The driver then said to him: “But master, the brakes of this lorry have been so bad for quite a few months that I am afraid to cross the mountain.” The farmer then said:

What about the boss?

It is a pity that the boss was not before the court at all, but because the Coloured man was the driver, he had to appear in court. But that is not the point that bears heavily on me, but what I object to is the fact that when the Coloured man said: “But master, have I now to go to gaol, or will master pay the fine for me?” he said: “No, I shall pay the R10, but it will be deducted from your wages at the end of the month.”

Disgraceful!

That is a fact. I went to talk to that same fellow, who is a friend of mine, mind you, and said: “Man, are you not ashamed of yourself?” And he said: “But surely that is the general practice here, is it not?” I do not accept that that is the general practice, I know our people too well for that, and I say it is not so. But I am mentioning this on purpose. That person will probably become aware that I mentioned this incident here.

Mention his name.

No, I shall not do so, but when he referred to the “end of the month” there is something else that hurts me as a farmer terribly. You know that here in the Western Province it is the custom for us to pay the Coloureds on the farms by the day. They earn so much per day, and on Friday or Saturday morning they receive their wages. But what is happening now? In very many cases it happens that the man is paid weekly, by the day, but he supposedly works on a monthly basis. He is always in debt to the farmer, and those Coloureds can never go to any other place of employment, for at the end of the month he owes the farmer R1 or R3, and when the Coloured man wants to go away to another farm, the farmer goes to the police and says: “Look here, that Coloured man left my employ; he is a monthly man. and he should be arrested.” Then the poor creature gets a fine again, which he in turn owes to the owner of the farm who pays it. and then he is stuck there for so many months longer. I think the time has arrived that I should mention these scandals of my own people also, and that we should try to rectify these things. We come here and blame the Government for everything that goes wrong between the Whites and the Coloureds, but we ourselves ought to put our hands in our own bosoms and see to it that we do the right thing. I have mentioned these few small examples, and I wish to express the hope that it may contribute to these exceptional cases not being repeated, so that the relation between our people and the Coloureds may improve. It will make a tremendous difference.

When I speak about the Coloureds, particularly that section I represent, I want to say that the majority of them are people who work. There are some of them too, as I have already said in this House, who are inclined to sit in the sun. But I have said what I wanted to say about them. The majority of these people are hard-working, and they are struggling to eke out an existence. But they are people who permit themselves to be influenced very easily, and that is what hurts me—and here again these are exceptional cases—that among them you also find people whom we must label as agitators. For some reason or other they derive pleasure from giving the other Coloureds who are perhaps not quite so well educated—or perhaps they are better educated judging from the manner in which they are living—a fright and inciting them to resent everything that smacks of authority. It might be the owner of the farm or another employer, but usually it is the Government of the day, and not only this Government; when the other party is in power it is the same. I have said that I am going to confine myself to things that occurred during the last few months only, and I now wish to give you an example of the things that are going on, and it is an illustration of something that happens from time to time in my constituency also among the less well-informed Coloureds. Now you will recall that during the last three years we have in this House passed two Acts and one Consolidating Act to place the Coloureds in the rural areas on a sound footing, and as far as I am concerned, the object was particularly to enable a certain group of Coloureds at Saron, about 35 to 40 miles from here, to live under better circumstances than in the past. Now on 1 April the community decided that they would be taken over by the Department of Coloured Affairs under this new order, and the people were enthusiastic about it. But last Saturday afternoon certain people came from the city, and they distributed among all of them a certain pamphlet. The pamphlet is headed: “Beware of Coloured Affairs.” Then it continues—

Who wrote that?

My blood also begins to boil when I read this kind of thing. For three years we and the hon. the Minister have been trying to put this specific case right. Here they come along now, a week before the time, and we no longer have an opportunity of telling these people that it is wrong, and that they are presenting everything in a wrong light. This whole pamphlet does not contain a single true word. Everything contains just a grain of truth, just like the film show we saw this morning—there is something that is true in it, but the entire presentation is wrong. Now they are referring to the Coloured Affairs Department and they say—

That is a complete lie—

It is a very sore point with those people at Saron, for there are people who own their own land, and our Department is now extending that land. Those people are going to retain their land intact, but in many instances land is going to be given to others who do not possess their own land. The whole thing is going to be converted in the interests of the people. Then they refer to taxes—

Now it is separation (“ afhokking”) when we survey plots for them of which they will get transfer on payment of merely the costs of passing transfer and surveying, and then they say that is separation. One would say they are a lot of pigs that we are going to place in sties.

The C.A.D. determines to whom an owner may bequeath his plot.

Just imagine, the Department will now come and tell me or any Coloured man that I must bequeath my plot to this one or that one, and that I may not bequeath to anyone else. Can you imagine that?—

We who are used to paying, know we have to pay for these things, don’t we? But the thing is not put in its proper light here. I do not intend reading more of this, but now I should like to tell you what a Coloured man living there has written to me—

Here is the same thing again, they come from the city—

You know we have been discussing Poqo as regards the Natives. I feel that these people who are sowing this evil among our Coloureds …

Who are they?

I shall tell you who they are also. I do not know whether it is fair to mention the person’s name, but I can say that it is somebody who is in the service of the State, and it is a woman at that. At the end of every month she receives her cheque from the State, and then she goes along and publishes this thing, and her henchmen—I know who they are also; they are listed communists. They are the henchmen who are shielding behind her, and they do these things.

After I have taken over Coloured Education she will not be in our employ one day longer.

I am pleased to hear that from the Minister. But I am already sick and tired of this kind of thing in my constituency. The Minister has just said it was a teacher, but they are not always teachers. It is going on constantly. I should like to mention another example. The Department of Coloured Affairs has made available to the Coloured people at Worcester a sum of R2,500 in connection with new sports fields, to start laying out the sports fields, and the municipality of Worcester said that they would also contribute their share. But at the end of this week, it will be the close of our financial year, and the Department then said to the sports bodies: “We shall be glad if you will inform us as soon as possible whether you are prepared to receive the money so that we shall not have to carry it over to the next year, and we are warning you that if it is to be carried over into next year, it will take you three or four years before you will have your turn again and will have an opportunity to get this money.” The vast majority of the Coloureds of Worcester rejoiced about it. What is happening now? Now that the time is coming closer for them to say “Please send the money”, the same group of people came along last week again, people in the service of the State, and they said: “We do not want this money from the C.A.D., for if we were to take that money for the sports fields, it is going to mean that we shall admit that the Department of Coloured Affairs means something to our people and is doing something for our people.” Petty; unfortunately nearly all of them people who belong to T.N.S.A. too. Now the Minister has said that this kind of thing will be stopped as regards teachers, but see, in law we cannot do anything against these people who spread pamphlets, and I am wondering whether now that we are involved in sabotage laws and all these things, where people are spreading such things that are absolutely in conflict with the truth, we could not subject these people to prosecution. At the moment you can do nothing. They may spread the greatest lies in the world, hut as long as they do not defame a man, nothing can be done about it. If the teachers are prohibited from doing it, others will do it again. It is only a small group of people always. I doubt whether it is .1 per cent of the Coloured population that does it. The time has arrived that we should put a stop to these things in one way or another.

I should have liked to follow the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) for he has raised a few very interesting matters here as regards the relations between the Whites and the Coloureds. However. I should like to warn him that he should not take too much notice of isolated instances such as those he raised here. He himself admitted that they were only exceptions to the rule. The rule is constantly improving good relations between Whites and Coloureds. In the second place I should like to express to him my appreciation of his disapproval of misrepresentations within the Coloured comnunity. In this regard I think he could do a good thing for his own people in close co-operation with the Minister of Coloured Affairs. I am sorry I cannot follow him further, for this matter of the relations between Whites and non-Whites is a matter in which I am keenly interested, but time will not permit me to go into it further now.

In the time at my disposal I should like to confine myself to the agricultural-economic conditions in the north-western Cape, and I do not apologize for that. The north-west Cape has its own peculiar problems, problems that will have to be solved speedily if we wish to maintain a settled and independent farming community there. We are concerned here with a region in which the rainfall varies from almost nothing on the West Coast to approximately seven inches in the vicinity of Prieska, Carnarvon, Victoria West and Beaufort West. Even this scanty rainfall varies from year to year and we have to contend with periodical droughts of longer or shorter duration. The drought conditions prevailing there at the present time have continued for five years already, and a large portion of this area has been converted into desolate desert. You can do nothing about it. Drought conditions are something a farmer has to learn to live with. All you can do is to build up resistance to it, as you build up resistance to disease in the human body. In the past, say up to about 20 years ago, the farmer could adapt himself perfectly, or almost perfectly, to these conditions. The extent of his farm was not really relevant. Sometimes the little farms were hardly big enough to establish his stock farming there for a few months in the year. When droughts came, he simply migrated, and that was his answer to every drought. The world was wide open, grazing was plentiful and the nomadic farmer could obtain grazing for his stock gratis or at an extremely low price. He lived a more or less nomadic life. The rapid development of agriculture north of the Orange River in the ’forties and the ’fifties, together with the intensification of farming in the north-west Cape itself, brought about a radical change in this. To-day the small farmer is tied down to his small farm where he can hardly run a few hundred head of small stock. According to the Du Toit report on the depopulation of the rural areas, about one-quarter of the farms in the sheep-grazing region, i.e. the Karoo and the north-west Cape, are too small and must therefore be regarded as uneconomical. In a previous debate in this House I pointed out that in nine districts in the north-west Cape comprising more or less one-half of the sheep-grazing region, no less than 28 per cent of the farms are too small and must be regarded as uneconomical. As my norm I took the finding of the Du Toit Commission that a farmer requires at least 1,200 sheep to be able to make a decent living.

Now I should like to refer specifically to one district in the north-west Cape, namely Carnarvon, where I had an opportunity of making an analysis of the position. I found that in that district there are 87 farmers on farms less than 1,000 morgen in extent; 78 on farms of 1,000 to 2,000 morgen; 63 on farms of 2,000 to 3,000 morgen; 85 on farms of 3,000 to 4,000 morgen; and 135 on farms of more than 4,000 morgen in extent. That means that in this district, there are 228 farmers who cannot make a decent living from farming; furthermore, there are only 85 who in good years only can live according to civilized standards, while there are 35 farming on farms that could be regarded as more or less economical. Small uneconomic farms are the crux of our problems, and the question should now be put whether the present form of State aid can make any contribution to not only the settlement but also the becoming independent of this type of small farmer. State aid consists, inter alia, of the following: There are direct subsidies and loans to individual farmers; advances from control boards and farmers’ cooperatives; provision of capital by the Land Bank and other Government Departments; consolidation of debts and rehabilitation under the Farmers’ Assistance Act. This assistance covers the whole field of provision of credit to the farmers. Colossal amounts are spent on that. To mention only a few: During 3½ years ended June last year, no less than R5,000,000 was spent by State Advances on production loans, the preservation of stock and aid to farmers afflicted by foot-and-mouth disease among their cattle. During the same period no less than R18,000,000 was spent on the consolidation of debts. So I could continue, and mention the aid given during the period from 1948 to June of last year. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into the figures. This aid is the greatest and most comprehensive any Government has ever given in order to finance production, and it is one of the reasons why to-day we have surpluses instead of having to put up with shortages. That has incidentally given the Opposition a new attacking front. Now they can squeal about surpluses which cannot be disposed of, as if surpluses are not a sign of prosperity. When the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) reopens his summer school in Carnarvon, I should like to suggest to him that he should place some of these data at the disposal of his lecturers, then they will talk less nonsense. Perhaps it is not generally known that that hon. member, or his party, has a summer school there to enlighten the old United Party members and to indoctrinate the young ones. The current joke prevalent in Carnarvon to-day against this school is that if you pass you exams you become a Nationalist, and if you fail you have to stay in the class for another year as punishment.

Government aid has been to the benefit of all farmers, but was always aimed at the needs of the small farmer to increase his productive ability and to dispose of his products at remunerative prices. However, the past five years have proved that this kind of aid is not sufficient to keep the small farmer on the land. In spite of the assistance, many of them had to give up the struggle and seek a living elsewhere. Seen from a purely economic point of view, continued subsidization of uneconomic farming is undesirable. You keep the patient alive at great cost without hope of his recovery. If, however, we are to leave the small farmer to the mercy of the laws of economics, he falls by the way and we depopulate the rural areas. We cannot afford that. We do not want that, because we cannot do it in a multi-racial country such as ours, and furthermore it is undesirable for cultural reasons. That is our dilemma and the only alternative then is a State-planned scheme for the consolidation of uneconomic farms into economic units.

When one refers to economic units, objections are raised. They say it depends on many factors and it is virtually impossible to fix such units. It is said that it depends, inter alia, on climatic conditions, it depends on the physical potential of the land, on the kind of agriculture which is practised, the ability of the farmer, the minimum needs of a family, produce prices, etc. All that is true but, if it is not pradoxical. I should say it is not so difficult to determine an uneconomic holding. This is what I mean: One may have one’s doubts as to whether a farm of 3,000 morgen in the north-west Cape is economic or not. One may regard it as a borderline case, where it depends on the ability of the farmer. But a farm of 1,000 morgen definitely is uneconomical. for its potential is only 250-300 sheep. Therefore nobody expects one to fix uneconomic units for ever. There are various factors that have to be taken into consideration. There are certain tendencies. The drop in the purchase power of money is one. The downward tendency in produce prices is another, as well as the rising standard of living. Unless the technical and economic services, research, are able to step up the profitability of the farm to such an extent that it can overcome these tendencies, units will have to become increasingly larger. That is why we are compelled to considerations that are valid to-day, and we must learn to adapt ourselves in future to circumstances that will be prevailing then. But two or three such small farms that are contiguous and which would form an economic unit—there the solution obviously is that the farmers should buy one another out with or without State aid. If it is done with State aid, it is always possible to assist the superfluous farmers who are eliminated to obtain land elsewhere. But if that cannot be done, then what has been happening in America during recent years must happen here. There about 7,000,000 farm units have been reduced to 3,700,000, with the result that the American Government is saddled with about 2,000,000 superfluous farmers and does not know what to do with them. Big land ownership is not a great problem in South Africa as yet, but the tendency is there, and the proper thing would be to restrict this tendency as soon as possible.

What then is the solution? We have been toying with the idea for a long time that we could use the Orange River to make small farms in the great valleys of the north-west economic propositions by making them partially irrigable, by applying extensive irrigation there. There are thousands of morgen available for that purpose. However, the planning of the Orange project, as announced now, has largely eliminated this possibility. The role the Orange could play in this respect is trivial, if not insignificant. I am convinced of that for the following reasons.

In the fifth phase of the planning water for 30,000 morgen is allocated in the Carnarvon valley and in the Sak River valley and in the sixth phase to a further 30,000 morgen in the Kalahari at Witsand. That may possibly happen after 30 years, provided sufficient water is available, and I am almost tempted to say if this Nationalist Government is still there to concern itself with the fate of the farmers. So unless this part of the plan can be completed earlier, it cannot have an influence worth mentioning on the uneconomic ownership of land. I do not think that can be done, for the plan does not provide for it, and as far as I am concerned, I do not feel optimistic about the carrying out of that part of the plan which affects the north-western Cape. I am not now referring to the land along the Orange River lower down. My reasons are as follows: When the Minister announced this scheme last year, he called it an elastic scheme. From that I inferred that certain sub-divisions of the plan as announced would not necessarily be carried out, or at least could be modified. As the water has been apportioned in advance between the east and the west, the elasticity does not mean that you will be able to effect a re-apportionment of the water between the two regions, particularly also because you will give preference to the development of the east. It merely means that you can separately regulate or change the relationship between consumption for irrigation, industry and municipal requirements according to the circumstances in the two regions, with this difference, that the quantity of water to be used in the Fish and Sundays River area has been fixed. While the far west, not along the banks of the Orange, but away from its banks, is left more or less in uncertainty. We must remember that the development of the Fish and the Sundays River area will have precedence and in the first four phases that will be completed, while the north-west will have its turn only in the fifth and sixth phases. The planning of the region in the north-west will depend on certain factors, and I should like to mention a few of these.

In the first place it depends upon the quantity of water available. We do not appear to know precisely. I may remind you that at the Colesberg Conference it was put at 1,500,000 morgen feet, after deduction of the waters of the Vaal and the Caledon. According to the White Paper made available to us last year, it is now called 2,100,000 morgen feet, and as you require at least 700,000 morgen feet for the development of the east, 700,000 would remain. If the first figure is correct, 800,000 morgen feet will remain for the development in the west then. If the second figure is correct, there will be 1,400,000 morgen feet available. I do hope the second figure is correct.

The second factor is unforeseen development in the field of mining and industry. Suppose deposits of a single mineral are discovered in the north-west, and a mine is established, that would cancel all your calculations. A third factor would be a clear appreciation of the needs and of all the possibilities of development of the north-west, e.g. the gradual exhaustion of underground water, which would mean provision of water from the Orange River for purely farming purposes.

Another factor is our pattern of apartheid that will require more and more water for Coloured settlers in the north-west; and finally, the fact that our water source is situated in a neighbouring Black state. Now we have had the assurance that provision has been made for that. I do hope that we shall be able to arrange something of this nature from Pretoria in the future. What I wish to emphasize is this, that a sober analysis of the position indicates that the Orange scheme, as announced now, will make a very scanty if any contribution at all, to the solution of the problem of uneconomic farming units in the north-west, that its value will have to be sought particularly in the fact that it will provide a livelihood to stock farmers that become superfluous in the process of the consolidation of uneconomic units. For this reason other measures have become so much more urgent and essential. We cannot wait 30 years in any case. The Government will have to intervene, cost what it may.

What I thought about, is a consolidation plan, call it a ten-year plan, in which you could solve the problem of uneconomic land ownership, inter alia, in the following manner: By preventing the further sub-division of farms, if necessary by legislation; by discouraging the acquisition of uneconomic units, and the Land Bank could play a role in this, and it should be made difficult or almost impossible for other financial institutions and for the commercial banks, to depart from this policy; by the purchase of small farms by the Department of Lands and the consolidation of these into economic units; by the purchase of large farms and the sub-division of these into economic units; and finally, by using irrigation schemes in the future to settle landless farmers. There is still 18 per cent of the White population of the Republic in farming. We have no hope to maintain this percentage in future, but if we act timeously we may possibly be able to retain the present numbers. In the north-west Cape lies the true hinterland of the White man. It is comparatively free of Bantu. It has a potential that holds possibilities of development. It is inhabited by hardened, proud, freedom-loving farmers, and I can assure you it is worth while.

First of all I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on his Budget and thank him for the concessions and the relief he has given the farmers and other taxpayers in his Budget. Then I should like also to tell the Minister that as gardener he has used the pruning scissors here and there and lopped off a small branch, which might have been necessary. He said he wished to administer phosphate to improve the growth of the plants, and now I have a request to make of the Minister, that there is one kind of plant in his garden that requires a little extra fertilizer, and that is the young farmer who has just started. We have just heard from the previous speaker about uneconomic units and the small farmers, but now I should like to appeal to the Minister, that when a young man has chosen to become a farmer, and where his father is willing to assist him to acquire an economic unit, that that £5,000 which may now be donated to a child without tax, should be doubled, or more, but only in the event of that son becoming a farmer. We know that the position to-day is that when a son takes up farming, £5,000 is really insignificant. It requires enormous capital to begin farming. You will ask why should the son who becomes a farmer get £5,000 or £10,000 without tax, and not the others. Let us take the parent who has two sons. He gives the one a university education, and what does that not cost him? And he is entitled to make deductions from his income-tax for all those years because he still has that boy at university, and the son does not pay income-tax either. But the young man who goes farming immediately becomes subject to income-tax and the father may not deduct anything in respect of him. We should like to see the young men who become farmers beginning on a sound basis. When a yound farmer begins farming operations with too little capital, we have the position that he subsequently has to go to State Advances for assistance. Where the father is able to assist the young man to begin on a sound basis, the father should not be penalized because he is helping the son. We see that the State is even awarding scholarships to encourage young men to continue their studies. Tremendous sums of money are spent to get the young men we require in industry and the sciences. Therefore we should not hesitate either to help the young farmer to start properly financially, and where the parent is able to place such a son on a sound basis, the donations tax and even the estate duty on the young farmer should be lightened a good deal, for we find so frequently that the one son goes farming and the other continues his studies, and in the course of years, when the parents pass away, the young man has to pay out the brothers and sisters and consequently he begins with a big debt. That is why I am urging that we should try to help the young farmers to begin on an economical basis.

I wish to go further and say that when a young farmer has started, and his income is such that he just begins to pay income-tax but his capital is still small, the notch at which he should have to begin paying income-tax ought to be raised higher. You may ask why should the young farmer have preference there too? The young farmer has no pension scheme in which he can participate. We see now that in the Estimates the amount people may deduct for a pension scheme has been increased, but the farmers have no pension scheme and accordingly they cannot deduct that amount, and I feel it is only fair that the farmer should also be given an opportunity by raising the notch at which he has to begin paying income-tax, to compensate him for not having a pension. Eventually the farmer has in any event to see to it that he amasses sufficient capital to enable him to live in his old age, because he has no pension. Therefore we have to have regard to all these things when we come to the taxes the farmer has to pay.

I do not wish to say any more regarding the young farmer. During this debate reference has been made to the Mother City, and that Parliament should remain here until the end of time. I do not wish to urge that Parliament should be moved to Pretoria, but I should like to say, though, that the Mother City should begin to pull up its socks. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice to refuse to prosecute in Cape Town when people are summoned for a contravention of the traffic regulations. Here I have a whole pile of summonses issued by the Department of Justice in one month, as many as 20 being served on one person, and this person was not convicted in court in a single case. Approximately 5,000 summonses are issued in Cape Town every month, and that is only a portion of those who have been ticketed, for the vast majority of people admit guilt and pay, but those cases which go to court are withdrawn because the man pleads not guilty and says that the traffic signs are wrong. Here is a number of photographs taken all over the whole of Cape Town, where the traffic signs do not comply with the ordinance. But the Cape Town City Council is aware of it, and does nothing to improve things. They virtually set traps and we who come from the rural areas fall into them so easily. In one case they erected parking meters here and the white marks where the cars have to park are still there in the street; then they remove the parking meters again, and at the one point they place a little board to say that you may not park there. Now a man comes along and sees there are the white marks where he has to park, and he parks there, and when he returns he sees his car has been ticketed. Then only he begins to look around, and over there on the other side there is a little pole with a notice that he may not park there. If you go to the office of the traffic inspectors, you will see that the one pole right in front of their office is not even marked correctly in conformity with the ordinance. It has happened here in Cape Town that the man has been summonsed and he pleaded not guilty because the traffic signs were not correct, and then the magistrate postponed the matter to hold an inspection later on, and in the meantime the City Council’s traffic inspectors went along and quickly painted that thing correctly as it ought to be; but the man had taken a photograph of it before it was painted and after it had been painted, and when the magistrate went there, and when he saw the photograph in court, he found that man not guilty also. I think it is disgraceful that the Department of Justice is abused in this way here in Cape Town, and only the people who are willing to do so, pay up, and all the other summonses that are issued every day are withdrawn again. But it is a waste of time and it goes on like that from day to day. I think it is absolutely wrong that the Department of Justice’s time should be wasted in this manner and that there should be such an abuse of manpower as there is here in Cape Town.

I do not want to follow the hon. member who has just sat down in regard to the last question that he raised here—the question of summonses in Cape Town. I am not interested in that subject; I know nothing about summonses.

Why cannot you follow him?

For the simple reason that I am not interested in summonses. That is my reply to the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker).

No, it was not he; it was the corporal.

Oh, I beg your pardon. If I had known who it was I would not have answered.

I want to follow up what the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) said when he asked that concessions should be made to young farmers, particularly since, as the hon. member has pointed out, farmers as such have no pension scheme and they can make no deductions from their taxable income for contributions made to pension schemes. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will accede to his request.

It is my intention to discuss farming matters this afternoon but before doing so I want to put the record straight. The hon. the Prime Minister attacked me on Tuesday afternoon. He said—

Has it not been revised?

It is just as I received my Hansard, and if he wants to do so the hon. Whip can satisfy himself that that is so. I want to quote what I said. I spoke about a Zulu who was asked whether he wanted the franchise. Hon. members on that side then made interjections, so many interjections that the Chief Whip on this side had to stand up and ask the Chair to protect me. I must honestly admit that I could not hear that interjection but it sounded to me as though the hon. member asked: “Were you with the Zulus?” My reply was—

Those were my words.

That was precisely what the hon. the Prime Minister said.

No, the hon. the Prime Minister said that I had said “I think only of the White man; I have nothing to do with kaffirs; when I think of someone, then I think of the White man”, There is a world of difference. What is interesting is that the hon. the Prime Minister got this news from an English evening newspaper or morning newspaper—I am not sure which—but it came from a small report in one of the English newspapers. He read it and instead of asking for my Hansard as one would expect a Prime Minister to do, he made that allegation. But I said more in this debate; I spoke about the Bantu and I said: “They ask for a small place in the sun.” I said further as far as the traditional policy of South Africa was concerned—

Do you see the difference, Mr. Speaker? The hon. the Prime Minister said that I had said: “I think only of the White man,” and then he said that he was not sure whether I had also said: “I have nothing to do with kaffirs,” and: “When I think of someone, I think only of the White man.”

Shame!

It is a shame that the hon. the Prime Minister should attack a member without taking the trouble to peruse that member’s Hansard and, what is more, that the hon. the Prime Minister should rely upon a report in the English Press … [Interjections.]

Tell us what in your own words you said.

Does the hon. Whip doubt my Hansard? If he does he must say so and then we can appoint a committee of inquiry to investigate Hansard. The hon. the Prime Minister is a responsible person and even though his whole speech was completely irresponsible, he should not have attacked me in such an irresponsible manner.

I have said that I want to talk about farming matters and in doing so I want to discuss the last leg of our amendment. Mr. Speaker, in the past economic prosperity in the country was always linked up with our agricultural economy and the prosperity of our agricultural economy. When the country flourished economically in the past, that prosperity was also experienced and shared by the agricultural industry. That position has now changed. The position in South Africa at the moment—and this was abundantly clear from the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance— is that there is an upsurge in the country’s economy. The hon. Minister made a very optimistic speech: I want to state here that agriculture. with the exception of the wool industry, still finds itself in a position that can almost be compared with a severe depression. What is the position of agriculture? During the period from 1926 to 1959, agricultural production doubled. The amount of land under cultivation in South Africa increased by 40 per cent, in other words, by two-fifths. While the increase in the amount of land under cultivation was 40 per cent, the increase in production was 60 per cent. We find, for example, that the production of maize has increased by 30,000,000 bags since 1949 and that the wool yield per sheep has risen from 5.5 lbs. to 8.8 lbs. The increased production has not been so phenomenal in the case of milk and meat but it has nevertheless been adequate. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) has pointed out that as farming methods have improved, so surpluses have accumulated, and at the moment we are faced with the position in South Africa that 30 per cent of the products produced by the farmer have to be exported. The farmers have complied with the request of the Government to produce more; they have made use of the information that they have received from the Department. They have applied improved farming methods; they have had a higher production, and what has the result been? We find that 28,000 farmers have left their farms during the past few years. In the case of the farmers who remained on the land, out of 90,000 who completed income-tax forms, 17 per cent suffered losses during 1957-8 and 23 per cent in 1960-1. The hon. member for Prieska has referred to large sums spent to assist the farmers in various ways. He has discussed this matter very thoroughly and it is not necessary for me to do so again except to say that in 1961 the farmers were already R4,600,000 in arrear with the payment of moneys that they had borrowed from the Government. The hon. the Minister was asked—

The Minister’s reply to this was: 1,876 and 45. That was up to 31 January 1963, a total therefore of 1,921 farmers who were sold out. This is not a very pretty picture. I want to return now to what the hon. member for Prieska said. He made a very interesting speech. He spoke about the north-west Cape. When I spoke about the difficulties experienced by farmers, I drew this distinction. I said, “All farmers except the wool farmers”, The hon. member for Prieska spoke about the north-west Cape, a part of the country with which I am not too well acquainted, and in regard to that part of the country he said that as a result of a study that he had made, he had found that 228 farmers could not make a reasonable living there and that there were only 35 farmers who could make a reasonable living in that part of the country. If the hon. member could make this allegation about the one type of farmer whom I excluded, the wool farmer, then I ask: What is the position of the other farmers? I am very sorry indeed that the hon. the Prime Minister is not here because I wonder whether he knows the circumstances of the farmers in this country?

No, he sold his farm.

Yes, that is correct. He sold out when things began to deteriorate, when maize prices and milk prices began to fall. But that has no bearing on the point at issue. I want to know whether the caucus of the Nationalist Party, through the two Ministers of Agriculture, have told the hon. the Prime Minister about the critical position in which the farmers find themselves? The hon. member for Prieska suggested that very urgent steps should be taken. He said that assistance must be given to the famers, come what may, or no matter what the cost may be. I am trying to remember the exact words that he used. I think he said: “No matter what it costs”. He said that the Government would have to intervene, whatever the cost may be. He mentioned three things. He said that the sub-division of farms should be prevented, if necessary by legislation; that the purchase of uneconomic farms should be made impossible by forbidding the Land Bank or the ordinary commercial banks to make loans available; that the Government should buy small farms and join them up and that it should buy large farms and sub-divide them. He said that those people farming on uneconomic small-holdings should eventually be settled under farming schemes. He also made this interesting remark with which I agree. He said that we had no time; that these things must be done within the next 10 years and he added that in fact we did not have 10 years in which to do these things. I want to agree with him and congratulate him on having made such an interesting study of this matter.

I have said that the farmers find themselves in a very critical position. At the moment the farmer in South Africa is left to his own fate.

That is not true.

A good crop in South Africa, particularly as far as the maize farmer is concerned, puts him in a difficult position and a few good crops make him bankrupt. What is the result? I have already said that the bulk of farming products has to be exported and this holds good particularly for maize. The more maize we export the greater is the loss and the greater is the danger that the price to the farmer will be reduced in the next year. I want to say clearly that if the farmer has a few prosperous years, he finds himself on the brink of bankruptcy.

You would prefer to see then that they have crop failures?

That is a fact, whether the hon. member for somewhere in South West Africa denies it or not. I do not even know what constituency he represents.

You should learn some geography.

But I do know that he certainly does not have the knowledge of farming that many members on this side of the House have.

He lives in Bellville.

Well, the farming methods in Bellville are perhaps not the same as in the rest of South Africa. The production costs of maize rose by 102 per cent from 1948 to 1959 and the price Tose by 33 per cent. [Interjections.] I am not addressing the hon. member for Cradock now. The hon. member stood up here and all that he could do was to thank the hon. the Minister for the Orange River scheme and to tell us that he had been advocating this Orange River scheme for years. The hon. member wanted to create the impression that hon. members opposite were the first to think of the Orange River scheme. He has to do that sort of thing because the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) who sits here has moved a motion in this House in connection with the Orange River scheme year after year. The hon. member for Albany is the father of the Orange River scheme.

And that hon.

member was opposed to the scheme.

The hon. member for Cradock opposed the scheme at the time and told the hon. member for Albany that he was dreaming dreams that could never be realized.

Who is the mother of the scheme?

Mr. Speaker, my time is limited. I am not going to refer to what I have already mentioned in the past—the small comfort that we receive from the two Ministers charged with the duty of looking after the interests of agriculture in this country, except to repeat that it is very small comfort and that the hon. the Prime Minister made the greatest mistake of his life when he split up the agricultural portfolio because now there are two of them to make a mess of things.

The hon. member must not be personal.

As far as the export of products is concerned, I think the Government should give more attention to this matter. I have already said so in the past. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, a maize mission was sent to America and although we have its report, I understand that it has not yet been adopted. In the report mention is made of a new price arrangement in terms of which different prices will be fixed for various parts of the country. Mention is also made of the freer handling of maize but I find little comfort in this recommendation. I think that the time has come for the Government to face two facts; the first being that the determination of the prices of agricultural products should rest with the Government, with the Cabinet.

That is already the position.

No, it rests with the Marketing Boards. The Marketing Boards advise the Minister and he merely confirms the findings of the Marketing Boards— or let me rather put it this way. The Marketing Boards recommend the prices to be fixed and then the Minister usually fixes the price at a slightly lower figure than that recommended by the Marketing Boards. But the point that I want to make is this. The Government accepts the responsibility for the fixing of minimum wages in the other sectors of our economy and the time has come for the Government to realize that the farmer is also entitled to a minimum wage.

Do you advocate the same minimum wage for all farmers?

I do not have the time now to work out all the details of this matter for the hon. the Minister but a price must be fixed on the basis of production costs-plus, so that the farmer can make a reasonable living—in other words, a minimum wage for the farmer.

Do you advocate a minimum wage which will be the same for all farmers?

No, I have just said that the production costs of the farmer must be taken into account and that he must be allowed a certain margin over and above his production costs so that he can make a reasonable living.

In other words, a minimum wage.

I used the analogy of a minimum wage simply to bring the fact home to the hon. the Minister that the Government accepts the responsibility for fixing minimum wages for all other sectors of our economy and I say that the Government should also accept this responsibility in the case of the farmer so as to ensure that the farmer makes a reasonable living. As far as the marketing of our products abroad is concerned, I think that the Government ought to play a far greater role. Just compare what our Government is doing with what is being done in other countries!

Japan.

I do not want to make a personal remark but out of the corner of my eye I can see a sort of dark cloud in the corner over there. Let me tell that hon. member that Japan is not an export country but an import country. May I also remind the hon. member that his Government declared the Japanese to be White. May I also remind him that a special mission was sent to Japan in order to sell some of our agricultural products, not to buy things there. But the difficulty is that while other countries have a credit system in terms of which the Government stands surety for the eventual payment of the price obtained for the products, we do not have a system of that kind in our country. In other words, when products are pur chased from a country, those products need not be paid for immediately; payment need not be made before those goods are delivered or before the product is shipped. Provision is made for free-on-board delivery or for postponement for a certain number of months and the Government stands surety for the payment of the purchase prices. I do not want to go into detail in this regard; I just want to suggest this to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. The details can be worked out later. In conclusion I want to say that in South Africa we ought to try to encourage our people to buy more maize and more maize products. We should also process more maize in South Africa in order to sell it in other forms. What I advocate is that the farmer should be given a certain amount of security so that he will know what the future will bring, and only the Government can tackle this, I have here a cutting in connection with a new product made from maize. The report reads—

This comes from the very highest level, the National Nutrition Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. The report goes on to say—

This product is mixed with the mealiemeal. The report continues—

How much of this product can be sold? I want to say that they should be a little more practical. This sounds to me like a Cabinet Minister’s breakfast! Since we have a surplus of maire in South Africa and since we have to process it into other more acceptable forms in which, for example, the Eastern nations will use it—and I am thinking here of the millions of Chinese who are starving—I would like to see that we do everything in our power to dispose of our surpluses but I am sure that people will not eat these fruit flakes containing, amongst other things, bananas and guavas, because I can imagine how high the price would be. They would simply not be able to afford it.

Mr. Speaker. I want to tell the two Ministers of Agriculture that the time has come for more attention to be given to farming matters and to the welfare of the farmer. The hon. member for Prieska said—and I agree with him—that the small-scale farmer knows no other profession; there is no other way in which he can make a living. He has to be kept on the land. In this multi-racial country of ours we cannot afford to allow those people who form the backbone of this country to leave the land. The hon. member for Prieska said: “No matter what it costs.” I do not want to say that but I want to go so far as to say that even though it entails considerable expense, the farmer must be kept on the land.

The hon. member who has just sat down must forgive me if I do not follow her. The time that I have at my disposal does not allow me to do so. I want to associate myself with the hon. members who congratulated the hon. the Minister on his Budget. This is our second Budget since becoming a Republic. The first one was a great surprise to us and to the outside world but the second Budget has exceeded all expectations both inside and outside the country. That is the answer to the blood and tears story—the closing of the banks, unemployment, depression, the flight of capital and so forth. Having regard to the Railway Budget and the general Budget I say that our country is experiencing a period of prosperity such as we have never before experienced. We are experiencing peace and quiet amongst employers and employees which is borne out by the wage increases granted to employees in our transport services, the Public Service, education, Posts and Telegraphs and in private undertakings as well, without any conflict between employers and employees. “Mutual loyalty” is the motto of this Government. That has been, and is and will remain our motto. That is our answer to the United Party prophets of doom. We on this side of the House steadfastly support the policy of separate development. There is no other alternative if the White man in South Africa is to survive. We are irrevocably in favour of separate development or segregation. We are prepared to die for that policy. In our God-given homeland we are prepared to give the Bantu their homeland as well in the pattern of the Transkei. We are giving them their own language, their own flag and their own national anthem. We are sincere in our aims for ourselves and for the Bantu. We are inexorable in demanding that same loyalty for ourselves. If our sincere aims fail, we will act mercilessly. The policy of the Opposition to give the Bantu representation in this House on a joint basis makes us shudder because in this we see the eventual supremacy of the forces of one man, one vote. In this sphere too the Opposition will not succeed in its fear-mongering: it will not succeed in its incitement and prophecies of doom. The people have rejected them at every by-election and general election. We on this side of the House are prepared to admit, having regard to foreign opinions and views and agitators inside and outside of our country, that there are stumbling-blocks and obstructions in our path, but because we believe in our just cause in respect of both Whites and non-Whites we see a future along that path. We see the fall of the White man and of non-White supremacy in the policy of the United Party. After the course of years when the occurrences in the Transkei will be seen in their correct perspective and when the history of this period and these happenings comes to be written, the United Party will have judgment passed against it. Its children will accuse it because it is that party and the English Press who, since 1948, have run with the hare and hunted with the hounds. Now that hare has become a monster and they are becoming afraid of that monster.

The Opposition on that side and the English Press have been suggesting for years that the Bantu were being oppressed, that they should rebel. They also made this known to the outside world. In South Africa this was not a normal, national awakening. It was just like a leaking tap. The Press suggested to the Bantu that they should break away from the White man. The bitter irony of the matter is that they did not do so out of affection and concern for the Bantu, but for their own political gain.

The name of Dr. Verwoerd will also be recorded in these annals and what he stood for and what he did in all sincerity for the salvation of all those living in South Africa will also be recorded; Dr. Verwoerd, the man of character who was called upon to perform a task. When his people needed a leader with initiative and vision, a leader who was not afraid to take risks because his intentions were honest and sincere, he was there.

I want now to confine myself to farming matters and in particular to the maize farmers in regard to whom the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) expressed concern. Once again this is the time of the year in which the maize farmers live in great suspense regarding the price of their product. I have a dozen and a half telegrams in my possession that I still have to show to the hon. the Minister. They all express their concern about the maize price for this year. Because I have the privilege of representing the constituency of Lichtenburg which is the largest maize-producing constituency in the Republic, I want to ask the Government and particularly the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing to fix maize prices this year in a most sympathetic manner. Drought struck the crop at a very critical final stage after all the production costs had already been incurred. Because of this the farmers suffered a loss of millions of bags in comparison with the crop they expected to have. The damage that has been caused has in most cases wiped out the anticipated gross profit. The maize farmers indirectly subsidize other industries, such as the bag industry, the fertilizer industry and other industries which are already established and which cannot compete on the world market. I want to make an appeal to these industries as well as to other industries, to factories and industries, to commerce in general and to housewives in particular—particularly the wives of maize farmers—to make more use of our maize products. It is well known that the disposal of products on the world market to-day is a great problem because the supply of maize is far larger than the demand. To a very large extent the solution to successful marketing is obvious and that is the assistance that the South African housewife can give in this regard. Maize products like mealiemeal, mealie rice and crushed mealies must be utilized more by housewives. In planning their meals—to be unknown is to be unloved—they can serve crushed maize with meat sauce, or mealie rice with borrie and raisins. Mealie rice can at any time be used as a substitute for rice if only it is correctly prepared. It has a higher nutritive value and it is far cheaper. There is also the question of barbecues, which is the way of entertaining nowadays, and poetu porridge. Statistics show that 8,000,000 lbs. of rice are being imported annually from China, India and Japan since 1961. This means that money leaves our country and apart from this fact we import the rice from countries that are not friendly towards South Africa, except for the small ray of light on the horizon that we may perhaps in the future be able to do some trade with Japan. Maize is not merely an agricultural product; it is the agricultural product. Not only does it assist young industries through their initial stages but it assists in keeping other industries alive. Maize forms one of the largest single items in our Railway revenue. Next to gold it earns the most foreign currency for us. Once again, I want in all sincerity to make an appeal to the housewives of South Africa, housewives from the lowest to the highest level, to make their slogan: Buy South African; support the products of your own country!

I hope I will be excused if I do not follow the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk). He dealt with a wide variety of subjects ranging from the policy of the United Party to the latest recipes of Mrs. Kotie van der Spuy. I hope I will be excused therefore if I return immediately in the short time at my disposal to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), who spoke just before he did. That hon. member qualified to-day as the prophet of doom in the sphere of agriculture. She has done more harm than good to our agricultural industry and I think there is one thing that I must put right. In the first place the hon. member said—and I think that she was speaking for her party—that maize prices should be fixed by the Minister in future. I do not think that in saying that she did a service to the maize farmers. We know that that is not so. We know that maize prices are considered by a Maize Board, a board on which various bodies are represented. The price is fixed in a democratic way. They then make a recommendation to the Minister and it is only thereafter that the price is announced by the Minister. I want to make a humble appeal to the hon. the Minister to keep the policy as it is at present. The hon. member went even further; she explained with great ado that the farmers were in reality in a very critical financial position. That is certainly not the truth. I want to refer the hon. member to the Friend of 29 November 1962 in which it is stated emphatically—

They go on to refer to 28,000 farmers in the Transvaal who owe about R66,000,000 to the Land Bank. But at the same time they point out that this amounts to an average debt of about R3,000 per farmer, something which is not at all unusual. They go on to say that having regard to those figures, only about 20 per cent of the rateable properties of the farmers are bonded. In the last sentence the Friend says—

In other words, the position of the farmer is undoubtedly completely sound, and we have this from the Friend which is not a newspaper that goes out of its way to assist the Government.

The hon. member also did her best to show that the economic prosperity that the Republic was experiencing at present was not shared by the farmer at all. I maintain that the opposite is the case and I say that the prosperity that we are enjoying in the Republic is to a very large extent due to the prosperity which is experienced in our agricultural economy. The present Budget proves that things are going well with the majority of the farmers and that our agricultural economy is integrated in our national economy in such a way that the two are actually inseparable. That is why, as farmers, we want heartily to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on his Budget. We want to thank him heartily for the concessions that he has made and which will help the farmers. This shows that the hon. the Minister of Finance realizes that the farmer has made his contribution during the past financial year. That is proved by the fact that the Republic has profited to the tune of R847,000,000 through the operations of the agricultural sector of the country. I think this is a considerable sum which compares very well with the amount earned by any other industry in the Republic. A point of very great importance is that agricultural products are primary products; they form capital in the sense that they attract industries to our country. They create opportunities for industries to invest money in our country thus providing employment for our people. In this way they exercise a considerable influence on our economy. That is why I say that the farmer still holds a key position in our country. We know that the United Party ridicules it but this side of the House maintains that the farmer is still the backbone of our country. Since hon. members opposite refer to the farmers in sneering terms, it is necessary to emphasize that the agricultural industry is one of the largest employers in our country. About 50 per cent of our whole population is dependent to a very large extent upon agriculture for its survival.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of agriculture must once again be brought to the attention of this House. Because our agricultural sector plays such an important part in our economy, it is necessary that it should be an independent and self-respecting community. It is true that we do not always sufficiently appreciate the traditional virtues of the inhabitants of the platteland. Those virtues are often not sufficiently emphasized. The Afrikaner people in particular have benefited spiritually from the conservative way of life of our rural society. That section of our people has also played a very stabilizing role in the composition of our nation and that is why we have been enabled from time to time to rectify imbalances that have arisen. I want to point out that there are certain characteristics that one finds mainly amongst the rural population. That is so not necessarily because they are better people but because they have been brought up in that way; it has been their way of life since child-hood. After all a young agriculturist who grows up in the platteland and who is prepared by his parents for the role of farmer in the future must possess that sound judgment which is always a very fine and honest characteristic. He also has to have determination in order to keep his head above water during difficult times. The last and in my view the most important characteristic is the desire and wish to be a farmer and to continue to be a farmer, no matter what may happen. There is an old saying that the eye of the farmer fattens his stock and that his tracks enrich his land. This is a saying which is only too true and is reflected in every true farmer one finds.

In the composition of our agricultural industry it is a fact that we have to deal with large-scale farmers and that we also have to deal with small-scale farmers. I want to deal with the position of the small-scale farmers. I want to quote from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into White Occupancy of the Rural Areas. This deals with the question of farms becoming smaller or larger. This is one of the conclusions arrived at by that Commission. Paragraph 477 states—

This is the position that we have and that is why we feel that those small-scale farmers must be considered because they form such a very important section of our national economy and because their turnover is so much smaller than that of the large-scale farmers. They are also far more vulnerable in times of adversity. Not only is their turnover smaller and, because of this, their profits, but they also have far less capital to enable them to overcome those setbacks. And when prices fluctuate on the market, that group is hit particularly hard. It is also true that a large percentage of small-scale farmers are completely dependent upon the income from their farming operations. They have no other income and in most cases they are qualified for no other calling. Because these farmers have no other calling and are completely dependent upon the income from those small farms, I say that they are far more vulnerable in the event of price fluctuations. It is also true that those small-scale farmers rely to a large extent upon family labour and it is also true that when they have no income from farming, no other member of the family is in a position to provide an income from some other source. As I say, when natural disasters strike, the small-scale farmers are the first people whose livelihood is jeopardized. Because they make up a large percentage of our agricultural industry, our national economy is very vulnerable when things do not go well with the small-scale farmers, who are indispensable to our agricultural economy. It is absolutely unthinkable that we should do without them. We know that the United Party went from platform to platform during a previous election and proclaimed, in an attempt to discredit our two Ministers of Agriculture, that they had said that the small-scale farmer should cease to exist. That is not true. They brought those two Ministers into discredit by saying those things. That is why we on this side of the House want to say in no uncertain fashion that the small-scale farmer is there to stay. That is the policy of this Government. And there is any amount of proof that we are looking after those small-scale farmers to the best of our ability and giving them more stability. That is why we say that this action on the part of the United Party is typical of the vulture-like politics that they have been practising recently. They try to create trouble where the shoe pinches most, where people are suffering because of circumstances beyond their control. The hon. member for Drakensberg held meetings in the Northern Transvaal where the farmers are faring so badly. As far as I know—and I live in an area which has been very hard hit—not a single Nationalist there has become a United Party supporter as a result of those circumstances. The opposite is true, Mr. Speaker. The farmers in the Northern Transvaal realize that they can only expect assistance from the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal for a moment with the question of financial assistance. It is not unusual for a Government or a State to assist farmers financially. This happens in most countries, to a lesser extent in some and to a greater extent in others. It is a well-known fact that from time to time and under certain circumstances, farmers have to be assisted financially. But the reason for this is obvious. Those farmers have to feed the nation. It is the responsibility of any Government to ensure that the nation is fed. That is why this Government will continue to give farmers the necessary financial assistance where it considers it possible and necessary to do so.

I dealt in detail on a previous occasion with the question of financial assistance. I am also fully aware of the fact that the present assistance is given generously in deserving cases but we also know that there are certain shortcomings. We are aware of the fact that the Cabinet is giving its attention to certain financial measures that have to be taken to meet those needs. In order to emphasize the necessity for these measures and their urgency, I want to quote again from the report that I have already mentioned. Paragraph 554 reads—

We are grateful for the steps that are being considered to meet that need. I have quoted from this report merely to impress upon the hon. the Minister that there has never been a more suitable and a better time than now to take this step in regard to the financing of agriculture. In this regard I want to say that we in the northern Transvaal are experiencing a drought such as we have never known before. I hope that I will be forgiven if I sound selfish in emphasizing the northern Transvaal because we know that things are also going badly elsewhere. But the fact is that in the constituency that I represent 95 per cent of the farmers are small-scale farmers. As I have already indicated these are the people who are hit first and hardest when disaster strikes. There are also many farmers in the northern Transvaal who do not have the necessary capital. I think that it is our duty to thank not only the Ministers concerned but to thank the Government as well for what it has done in this area over the past years. There are farmers there who have not had a crop for four successive years. As I say, these are farmers who have little capital and one can understand that their need is very great, and because that is so I want to conclude by indicating that what is required immediately is not assistance to buy luxuries but to buy the necessaries of life. It is necessary for some of these farmers to be provided with the necessaries of life. In the second place there is the question of food and renumeration for the people in their employ. We have the harvest loan scheme to-day, and after the crop failure this year we can expect that more farmers will have to be assisted under this scheme. A crop failure, as hon. members are aware, means that the farmer gets back his seed and a little extra, but this year they are getting even less than that. In many cases they are getting absolutely nothing. It is alarming to think that some of our farmers may possibly disappear from the land, farmers whom we will then have to rehabilitate and who will then have to be assisted by the Government. The position in which they find themselves is not the fault of the National Party and it is not the Minister’s fault; it is due to factors over which nobody has any control. I conclude with the request to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the other Ministers who are concerned with this matter and whom we know are always sympathetic to realize that the need in the northern Transvaal is great and to give these people generous assistance.

I wish to direct my remarks to that part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia which calls upon the Government to take steps to end our ever-growing isolation from traditional friends in the Western world. Mr. Speaker, it is because we wish to see the good name of our country honoured by the nations of the world and because we wish to defend and preserve South Africa for Western civilization, in the African continent in particular, that we have included this leg in our amendment.

I do not think it can be disputed that our position at an international level is growing worse and worse as the months go by. Therefore I think the question must be asked for how long can we in South Africa afford to go it alone, to go it alone in political isolation from the rest of the world. Sir, it would appear from ministerial statements made recently that the Government have resigned themselves to following a policy of political international isolation. They have done so because they have accepted the fact that as long as the Nationalist Party Government, with the image the rest of the world has of its race policies, continues in office and continues to rule our country, in the descriptive words of the Burger South Africa “sal nog wees die muishond van die wêreld”. When we have reached the position, Sir, that the Prime Minister of our country has to issue threats against the rest of the world, as he recently did at a meeting at Epping, then I would suggest that we have reached rock-bottom in our relationship with the other countries of the world. He said this in discussing the attitude of other countries towards South Africa at the present time—

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot issue threats of this nature without an acute awareness of the difficult and bad position on the international front of our country. But he even went further. The hon. the Prime Minister alleges that every leader of the free world is out of step except himself and the Nationalist Party Government in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister went so far as to accuse the leaders of the Western world of having in the first instance no principles, and secondly as acting as nothing but political opportunists. At the same meeting at Epping a couple of weeks ago, he had this to say—

The inference is quite clear. The Prime Minister on that occasion was talking about the Western nations. I would remind the hon. the Prime Minister that the leaders of the Western World, like him, are elected by the people that they represent, and if any one of these leaders of the Western world had to stand for election in their own countries, with a race policy such as our present Government has, they would never have any hope of being elected at all. As for having no principles, I wonder if the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs will permit me to remind him that if it was not for the principles of the leaders of the Western world in their fight against Communism, the free world might have ceased to exist already, and that includes our own country. I think that these statements of the hon. the Prime Minister indicate how bankrupt of hope the Government has become in trying to retrieve the international position of our country and to reinstate its status amongst the nations of the world. Sir, is it any wonder then that we have to read in the newspapers a speech made by the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs the other day in which he told the students of the Free State that South Africa is engaged in a struggle for its very existence. The Government defends the situation as it exists at the present time by stating that there is only one alternative and that is complete capitulation. Because they argue there is only one way to satisfy the rest of the world and that is complete White capitulation by accepting the principle of “one man one vote When we raise these issues across the floor of the House, Sir, we are always met by the question by members on the other side “will the United Party accept such a policy and pay this price for the favour of world opinion?” Before replying to this question, I think it is necessary to to take very briefly into review the extent of South Africa’s isolation at the present time. Let us look at the position as it is to-day and how it has deteriorated in the past few years. I want to begin with the United Nations. The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, last year, reporting in this House on events at the United Nations Session in 1961. had this to say when the vote was taken at the United Nations on the application of sanctions against South Africa, which was defeated on that occasion—

I can only comment at this stage in the light of what did happen at the United Nations since then that the Minister must have been frightened out of his wits this past year at the last session of what was decided then in regard to sanctions being applied against South Africa. If he was nervous the year before when the motion was defeated, then he must really have been frightened out of his wits this year as to the consequences upon world opinion and the consequences of that motion being adopted at the United Nations.

Now the Government and the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs try to cover up the tragic position in which we have landed by saying “Well, it was going to happen in any event because we are dealing with a lot of Black states, we are dealing with the Asiatic states and with the African states at the United Nations”. But we have heard continuously from the Minister of Foreign Affairs during the last three years that one can do what one likes, but the position is no different to what it was in 1946 and 1947 and if there was a United Party Government in power, one would still have to face the same situation. Sir, in support of this contention for the past two years the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs defending the deterioration of our position at the United Nations, has in long speeches here quoted lengthy extracts from speeches made at the United Nations in the years 1946 and 1947, as taken from the United Nations records. Mr. Speaker, what was the position in those years when a United Party Government was in power that gave representation in this House to the Bantu population and when the Coloured man was on the Common Roll? Firstly, without exception, all the Western nations voted for South Africa, everyone of them. Secondly, important South American countries voted for South Africa. Thirdly, even African states voted for South Africa, those that were represented at the United Nations in the years 1946 and 1947; fourthly, the Scandinavian countries voted for South Africa. If any hon. member has any doubts about this at all, I have in my hands here a voting paper of the United Nations for those years, in which it is recorded which countries in those years supported South Africa. I do not want to mention them all, but amongst them was even Ethiopia. I do not want to quote all the speeches, but I want to quote just one speech to show the general attitude of the Western nations towards South Africa in those years, and I quote this—

I cannot stand by and read some of the things which have been said, which are to the effect that there has been some breach of morality by the Union of South Africa.

I am not going to use the term “morals”, but I repeat that when people criticize a country, for its treatment of dependent peoples or its failure to act in a certain way, let them look at the position fairly. Let them look at the credit side of the balance. Let them look at the good record of the Union of South Africa, a magnificent work in war, and let them look at the great contributions in principles solely of government which have been made by the leaders of South Africa.

That statement in 1946-7 was made by the Leader of the Australian Delegation, and I want to ask the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs now: Where is Australia’s voice to-day when Australia voted against South Africa? Where is the vote she gave to South Africa in those years and where is Australia’s vote today. The plain fact of the matter is that no Western nation gives South Africa her support. They would consider to do so in the words of the Australian Delegate as a “breach of morality” in the treatment of non-Whites. It is the direct result of the policy enunciated by this Government.

I now want to turn to our situation in Africa. In the years in which this hon. Minister has been Minister of Foreign Affairs we have had one statement of policy in regard to Africa. That statement of policy which the hon. Minister made in 1957 was based on our country forming a link between the West and the peoples of Africa, which was, as the Minister put it at the time dependent on the other African states accepting the Republic as a fellow-state in the Continent of Africa. This policy statement contained certain laudable sentiments with which we at the time agreed. But we also warned the Government at the time when the Minister’s statement was discussed in this House that if the policy had to be successful, we as an African state would have to recognize the tempo of development in Africa itself to the extent that we could not here in this House legislate in isolation. The Government have made the fatal mistake of not recognizing that what they do in the sphere of domestic policies in South Africa will have its repercussions in Africa far beyond our borders, and vice versa, perhaps even more important, that what is accomplished internally in the other states of Africa will affect our own way of life in South Africa to an ever-increasing extent. We see to-day with the fertilizer of communist ideology and the rain—to use a metaphor of the Minister of Finance—of American dollars the development of African nationalism, aided by the policies of this Government in dismembering our own country. You must, Mr. Speaker, see the impact of these developments on our own country to-day with the situation with which we are presently faced.

I say that this Minister’s policy as far as Africa is concerned, has been a miserable failure. But why has it failed? It has failed because the Minister and the Government have failed to get the acceptance of the other African Black states to recognize our country as a country in Africa containing both White and Black Africans who are prepared to make positive contributions to the development of Africa. It has failed to such an extent, Sir, that we have been kicked out of the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa, and I would submit that if our contributions have been of such a nature as to be valued by the other African states and had been proportionate to our resources, we would possibly still be members of this organization, to-day the only all-Africa organization. Mr. Speaker, what was our total contribution to this African organization? Let me give the House what the Minister himself has given me: Four visits from our country to other states in Africa, two visits by two representatives of the Republic as agricultural experts; one visit by a member of the staff of the C.S.I.R.; and one visit by the Market-master of Johannesburg. How many visits to our country by representatives of the other states? Three visits. Two instances where we made publications available to other African states. On one occasion we made three educational films available at a total cost of R40.36; two instances where we supplied vaccines; in one case we gave diagnostic services to another African state at a cost to the taxpayers of South Africa of R1.85; and then as a final terrific contribution to show the extent of our co-operation in Africa we gave 50 guinea-pigs to the Congo at a value of R83.69. That is the sum-total of our contributions in a positive way to the emergent states of Africa in the years 1959, 1960 and 1961, and I am not including in this case—perhaps the Minister would like to make a point of it—the two or three contributions of assistance that we made to the Federation. With all our know-how, with all our resources and the Minister’s protestations over the years of active assistance that is all that the Government have offered. I think every member of this House remembers the great manner in which this Minister has for years brought up our efforts with the C.C.T.A. before we were kicked out.

What about our own underdeveloped peoples?

Compare that with the rain of dollars: $55,000,000 contributed in 1958 and a total amount voted for foreign assistance by the United States Government fo something like $287,000,000 in 1961, to which President Kennedy referred as being essential to build a strong and a free Africa. Apart from the C.C.T.A., we; were linked up with one other organization, a United Nations Organization, the Economic Commission for Africa, which this Minister in the first instance refused to join because he lauded the C.C.T.A., and then subsequently had to change his mind. We cannot attend the meetings of this organization either, because no country in Africa will give our representatives visas. I could go on at length quoting information of this nature. But what is our position with the other Western countries, the Scandinavian countries who were friends before? I can quote from statements made by leading members of European countries, statements by Americans. I can go on at length quoting statements made by politically elected leaders of all the other Western countries in their attitude towards South Africa. But I think it will suffice to quote one in the time that is available, because I think it represents the views of all the leaders of the Western states and this is what it says—

It is incumbent on us here to-day to consider what we can do as members of the United Nations, and as representatives of individual states, to convince the Government of South Africa that apartheid is wrong, that it cannot succeed, and that its abandonment is indispensable for the future of all the peoples of South Africa. I would add that its abandonment would aid the Continent as a whole; for apartheid does more than separate the races within South Africa; it also separates South Africa from the rest of Africa and denies that nation the opportunity to make the contribution it might make to the development and progress of all Africa.

We believe that the nations must take evey opportunity to make known to the Government of South Africa the sentiments of the world community.

That was a statement made by the United States ambassador to the United Nations and I think represents in tone the statement made by all the leaders of the Western nations in expressing abhorrence of the race policies followed by this Government. But, Sir, what is the answer? Will it be necessary to follow a policy of complete capitulation on the principle of “one man one vote” and surrender what we look upon as Western civilization and a civilized way of life in our own country in order to placate the rest of the world? Of course not. Such a course is unthinkable, and I have no doubt that we can save the situation. I do not for one moment believe that in the present mood of the peoples of Africa and certain Eastern countries it can be changed overnight. But I do believe in one thing: That we can change the views of the Western nations whose sympathy and support is vital to the future security of our country. In order to achieve that, there are two things we have to do, there are two essential requirements. The first is that we have got to change the image of South Africa that this Government has created of South Africa, the image of the White man in South Africa we have got to change in the world at large. What is that image? It is one of race domination in the worst degree, where all other non-White citizens are denied rights and privileges enjoyed in any democratic society. Sir, the film that was viewed to-day and the impact that it has made on millions and millions of people in the Western world is the image of race discrimination.

It is a lying document.

It is a lying document, but it is also based on half-truths, precisely as the speech made by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) in this House last night which has done just as much damage to the interests of South Africa. There is no difference to my mind between the speech made by the hon. member for Vereeniging last night in this House and the film that we saw to-day. Both were harmful to the interests of South Africa. This picture of South Africa can only be changed by the Minister of Information. The Minister of Information can never hope to counteract the influence that this film has had. Sir, the image of South African can only be changed by the people of South Africa, and it can only be changed by the people of South Africa rejecting at the polling booth this Government who have created this image of South Africa abroad at the present time. I am convinced that the fall of this Government will without doubt show the world, in the words of the Australian delegate to the United Nations, that there is no breach of morality on the part of the White people of South Africa in their treatment of Black Africans. Sir, the Western world would look upon the rejection of this Government by the White people, as the rejection of apartheid which is interpreted as the worst degree of race suppression; the rejection of this Government would create the impression in the Western world at large that the White people of South Africa have restored Western democratic principles, under which the Black Africans will have the right of enjoying political and economic and social opportunities under the policy of a new Government. The second essential is to establish in the minds of the people of Africa, that the White Africans of the Republic have as much right to the soil of the Republic as the Black Africans have and that White Africans of the Republic of South Africa are prepared in company with the other African states to share their know-all, their industrial and technical resources for the common good of Africa. If we want to achieve these essentials and we want to gain once again the confidence of the Western nations in our country as a state in Africa, then I have no doubt that we will have their support in achieving the second essential, namely to get the support of the African states, and that the Western nations will look upon South Africa as the pivot on which activity will hinge to keep Africa safe for Western democracy.

In conclusion, I want to quote two Prime Ministers’ statements here. I wish in the first instance to quote the Prime Minister of South Africa when he said this in this House on 11 April last year. He said this—

Sir. the United Kingdom’s views are the views of the Western world. The Prime Minister continued—

Mr. Speaker, I think it can be accepted that the views of the United Kingdom Government generally represent those of the Western world. The other Prime Minister’s statement I wish to quote was also made in the confines of this building—

These words were uttered in the confines of this building by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in his famous “winds of change” speech. Sir, our plea on these benches is that the people of our country do not wish to see us being further isolated, because we cannot live alone. Our plea is that the people of South Africa should see that a wind of change blows for the betterment and the decent upholding of democratic principles in South Africa, so that once again we can get the respect of the Western world and in getting their respect, be able to get the respect of the rest of Africa.

I do not want to follow up what has been said by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). He spoke about the isolation of South Africa and completely lost sight of the fact that under a United Party Government, where one concession after another would have been made, South Africa would already have been Black. If he feels that it is desirable to have a Black Government in power in this country and that in that event we will not be isolated, then I can understand his argument.

The charge has been made against us by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) that as far as our agricultural economy is concerned we are in a position that can be compared to a depression. I want to refute that allegation. A statement such as that can only do our agriculture a great deal of harm. The Budget has shown that there is economic prosperity and agriculture has also kept pace with that prosperity. I want to say immediately that I exclude those places, some of which fall in my constituency, where a state of emergency prevails at the moment. This Government is very sympathetically disposed towards the farmers and this is proved by the fact that provision is made in the Budget for an amount of R38,000,000 in respect of subsidies on railway tariffs for the conveyance of livestock and dairy products, wheat, artificial fertilizer and maize. In the past year 1962-3 an amount of R2,700,000 was allocated to State Advances to assist our people. This year, 1963-4, there is an amount of R5,400,000, twice the amount voted last year. This proves that this Government looks after our people when they are in difficulties. As far as this amount for State Advances is concerned I also want to say that it is the policy of the Government to assist the farmers, and that this is the correct thing to do because it is done in every country in the world. I want to mention here that the total amount recoverable by State Advances up to 31 March 1962 amounted to nearly R 136,000,000, including interest. Of that amount, only 3.2 per cent was written off. This proves that our farmers do meet their obligations if they are assisted. In 1961-2 the total production in agriculture, stock-breeding and horticulture increased by 4 per cent. In 1960-1 the production amounted to R814,000,000 as against R846,000,000 in 1961-2. The value of our agricultural production reached a record figure. But this creates the problem of surpluses that we have to contend with to-day. When we have surpluses and we are able to export our surplus commodities at a good price, there is not much danger in this regard but the difficulty we experience is that foreign agricultural countries are out to protect food production in their own countries and this creates a problem when we are faced with a surplus production. If the price of a product which is exported to another country is lower than the price in the interior, this creates a danger for the Government because if we have to export large quantities of that product at a lower price, the industry suffers because the industry has to bear that loss itself. We are very dependent upon overseas markets and there are certain products which are produced in this country mainly for the foreign market, products such as wool and fruit. It has been proved over the years that the prices of those agricultural products which are exported fluctuate more than the prices of the products that are produced and consumed here. It is obvious that in those cases where we receive poor prices for products overseas, the Government will try to create a more favourable relationship between production and internal consumption. The question, of course, is how? We are then faced with the question as to whether we should restrict farmers by means of a quota system. There are many farmers who still do not like this idea but I foresee that this will eventually have to come. The size or the scope of our internal consumption is determined by the economic prosperity of the country, by the growth of our economy and industry in the country. As far as the marketing of our products is concerned, there is one bright spot and that is that this Budget shows that there has been a healthy growth in our economy and that the position of the country is sound. In the second place, the purchasing power of the Bantu will increase to such an extent that their large numbers ought to create a good market for our agricultural products. When we think of the large amounts spent on the Bantu homelands and on border industries, we realize that this will create good markets for our agricultural products. But our population also increases by 2 per cent every year. This means an addition of more than 300,000 people to our population every year by means of this normal increase. Every year we have 300,000 extra mouths to feed.

I want to indicate the important role that agriculture plays in connection with our balance of payments. In 1956-7 our total exports amounted to R797,000,000 of which R350,400,000 or 44 per cent was made up by agricultural products. In 1960-1 our total exports amounted to R801,000,000, R311,000,000 or 38.8 per cent of which represented agricultural products. There was a decrease at that time as a result of the fact that exports were reduced and because prices fell. But in 1961-2 the total value of our exports amounted to R875,600,000 and of this figure agriculture was responsible for R373,100,000, or 42.6 per cent. This indicates that the export of agricultural products is an important factor in augmenting over foreign reserves. It is important to exploit these export markets because in this way we earn money for South Africa abroad. The United Party have referred to the adverse conditions in agriculture but they lose sight of the fact that the prices of many of these products have fallen on the world market. When we look at the index figures for wool, groundnuts and maize, taking 100 as the figure for 1955-6, we find that in 1960-1 the figure was 85 for wool, 91 for groundnuts and 84 for maize. This indicates that there was a considerable drop in the prices of those products on the world market. But the United Party say that things are going badly with our agriculture. Falling prices are a world tendency.

I want to come back now to our farming industry and particularly to the drought conditions which prevail at present. It is true that it is of the utmost importance to the country we should have a sound farming community. We have fluctuating climatic conditions. Let me say this about our farmers; they are able and they have proved in the past that they can adjust themselves to these changing climatic conditions. But notwithstanding the favourable position as far as our present Budget is concerned, it is a fact that the constituency that I represent in the Northern Transvaal has been hit by unusual conditions and the survival of many of our farmers is threatened by drought. Large numbers of our farmers in the Northern Transvaal, the vast majority of them, are small-scale farmers, and if something unforeseen happens, it affects those people adversely. I want to sketch the position briefly for the House and I make no apology for doing so because it is necessary for us to know what has happened.

In November 1962 crops were sown in that area and although the crops came up well, very little rain has fallen since January with the result that the crop has been lost. The grazing is so poor that already at this stage farmers have started trekking with their stock and the whole of the winter still lies ahead. What makes the position so serious there? The reason is that this condition has been aggravated by what happened during the two preceding years. What happened in 1961? We had foot-and-mouth disease in the Northern Transvaal and the stock of many of the farmers was placed under quarantine with the result that those farmers were unable to sell their stock. This livestock represents the farmers’ sources of income, by means of which they have to pay their instalments and interest. Nowadays most of our people have to buy their land on the instalment system because farming is an expensive business. The result of this is that the farmers have not been able to move their stock or to sell them, their grazing has been ruined with the result that thousands of head of stock have died and in this way many farmers have lost their capital. Their debts are increasing and these farmers are worried about the position. I want to compare their position with that of a person drawing a salary, a person who has to make ends meet without his Salary for a year, who has to pay the instalments on his house, who has to support a wife and children and who in the eighth month loses his roof in a storm and then has still to borrow money to build a new roof. After having had no income for months, these people were hard hit by the fact that they lost many of their livestock.

The following year 1962, was a year of very poor crops. In my constituency particularly cattle farming is the stabilizing factor in the economy. The crop farmers had very poor harvests and the cattle farmers had no grazing and because of the loans which they had to take, those people were very depressed, as one can well understand. It is true that from January to April after the rain, our people are usually very optimistic, they are filled with hope when the grass grows well because the young animals fetch good prices on the market. But what has happened now? I visited that area recently. The time is past when people on the Highveld bought trek-oxen and store-oxen. What we have in the Northern Transvaal to-day is a cycle. One man is a breeder, another buys young heifers, another buys store-oxen and yet another fattens up his animals to make them ready for the market. There is a complete cycle there, but during the drought nobody was able to buy young animals. The crop farmer did not have a crop and the stock farmer was affected by the drought and had to get rid of his animals with the result that the value of oxen which should have been sold dropped by from R10 to R20 per head, and that is precisely the amount that the cattle farmer needs in order to have a gross income on his farm. As far as slaughter stock was concerned, the position was slightly better and indeed, from October to January, slaughter stock prices reached a peak that they had not reached in years. But our people in the Northern Transvaal were unfortunately not able to share in those prices because they were experiencing a drought They were not able to enjoy those benefits. The future looked bleak for those people, mainly because we concentrate on expensive stock-farming there. It is unprofitable to feed that livestock for a long period. One may perhaps buy fodder for a few months, but not for longer. I want to say that we are grateful that we have a National Party Government in power to look after our people. By means of the assistance given by the Government many of those people have been saved from ruin. Many forms of assistance have been made available and I want to express our gratitude not only to the two Ministers of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Lands for the most sympathetic manner in which this matter has been dealt with but also to every official of the Department who has had anything to do with this matter. We have had great sympathy from all of them. But I feel that I must also pay a tribute to those people who find themselves in these circumstances and who refuse to go under. They have faith and courage and confidence in the future and they have the necessary determination. These people deserve encouragement which, fortunately, they do receive from this Government. We are grateful for the fact that we have a National Party Government to look after our people under these circumstances, a Government which will treat them with the greatest sympathy at all times.

Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to a speech by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) on the Opposition side which was completely foreign to the debate on agriculture and one gained the impression that the Opposition suddenly realized that they had moved an amendment in this debate and that one of its points dealt with the so-called isolation of South Africa from the rest of the world. Because in the nearly four days of debate that we have already had there has not been one word on the part of the Opposition in regard to that point of their amendment, the hon. member for Turffontein jumped up quickly to say something in that regard. He said at the start of his speech that he would give us the answer to-day to what they regarded as the solution to all those things which in their view are wrong with South Africa. We all waited in anticipation and we though that after all the caucus meetings of the United Party we were going to have some guidance to-day regarding the solution of our problems. But then the hon. member began a long tirade against the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and he continued to belittle South Africa and her finest efforts. He eventually gave us his answer at the end of his speech. He said that everything that was wrong with South Africa could be rectified if we had a change of Government, but he did not substantiate his statement. He did not tell us why world opinion would change in respect of South Africa if we had a change of Government, why South Africa would then no longer be isolated. I want to put this question to the Opposition with all the earnestness at my command: Why do the Opposition think that South Africa will be no more isolated than she is to-day if we have a change of Government? And if we have a change of Government, who will be the alternative Government? Will it be the United Party?

It has become very clear to me in this debate that the United Party are finished as a political factor in South Africa. The United Party does not represent any trend of thought in this House. That can be seen, and the world will realize it if the speeches made here by members of the United Party are read. Each one has a different story to tell. No specific trend of thought is followed. That is why I say that the United Party is finished as a political factor and an Opposition. The United Party is completely frustrated and in its frustration it does not care what it does to belittle and hurt and blacken South Africa in the eyes of the world, or how far it goes in doing so as long as it imagines that in this way it may perhaps be able to regain a little of its lost political prestige.

We listened last night to a speech in this House that I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. The hon. member for Vereeniging has already replied partly to it. I refer to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) who unfortunately is not here now. I want to say that what that hon. member said here ought not to be permitted in this country, let alone in this House. She knows that she enjoys parliamentary privilege and she is abusing it. The speech of the hon. member was damaging to the State; it was damaging not only to the National Party but to the United Party as well. I came to the conclusion while watching the Opposition when the hon. member for Houghton was speaking, that she was expressing the most fervent desires and wishes of the United Party which they did not have the courage to express in this debate themselves because they were afraid of what the electorate would do at the next election. The United Party has been following a certain pattern for some time of belittling South Africa and accusing this Government of being the oppressors of the Black man, up to a point, and now the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and a few other conservative members have apparently gained the upper hand temporarily. They have suddenly swung around and placed the Government in a completely different light. But while the hon. member for Houghton was speaking, it was very clear to me that she was expressing the views of the vast majority of the Opposition. Her’s were their desires and wishes and their past actions substantiate this fact. That is what they want to see in South Africa. Because if they can destroy South Africa and the National Party simultaneously, they will not hesitate to do so for one moment. The type of speech that we listened to last night is damaging to the State and undermines the authority of the State and in her absence I want to make an appeal to the hon. member and to members of the Opposition to be very careful what they say here not only now but at all times. Sir, I want to remind you of what she said in regard to the unfortunate happenings at Paarl a short while ago. It is convenient for the hon. member not to be here now but there are a few members of the Opposition here who are absolutely frustrated and discouraged and without hope for the future because they do not have the courage to express the policy that they are in favour of. They use the hon. member for Houghton for this task and last night that hon. member expressed the wishes of the United Party.

The hon. member referred to the unfortunate happenings at Paarl. She went further and she said these things here in this House where she has a very willing Press to record her barbed words, where she has a forum and where she enjoys parliamentary privilege. She came to this House and said these things and they were transmitted to the world. She said that it would not end with Paarl but that it would happen throughout the country whereever oppressive measures such as the pass laws were applied. That is why I say that speeches of this kind should not be permitted either in or outside of this House because it is not in the interests of the State that these speeches should be made. The hon. member told the Bantu by implication that they should act as they acted in Paarl wherever the laws of this Government are applied. I think that at the present time we must be careful of what we say.

We had the opportunity this morning of seeing a film which I am sure deeply shocked every right-thinking person. I can think o dreadful parts in that film. I want to brand it as a horrible film which, together with the speech of the hon. member for Houghton, was planned by a master-mind for the year 1963 when the future of the White man in South Africa was being threatened. That film is only one small card in the jigsaw puzzle giving the final picture. That film was made and put together in that distorted fashion in order to condition public opinion abroad against the White man in South Africa. That is the sort of thing that happened prior to the Anglo-Boer War. That is the ugly sort of thing that we do not want to see here and I am waiting for hon. members of the Opposition to stand up and to condemn and reject that film out of hand. I am waiting for the hon. member for Houghton who is a member of this House and, as such, a part of the Government of the country, to stand up and condemn that picture as a false image of what is taking place in South Africa. But it is part of a pattern that must be followed to condition world opinion against South Africa, to ripen it. It is not aimed at the National Party but at the White man in South Africa. I would prefer to say nothing more about it. It was a shocking and a dreadful thing to watch and it filled one with revulsion. One could take the same picture in any country where certain incidents take place, incidents which take place each day in most countries of the world, and perhaps far more often than is the case here. I would like to see this picture released for public consumption in South Africa, not in order to create a wrong impression or to stir up hatred against America, but to show the White public of South Africa what is being done to present our country in a distorted and incorrect light to the outside world and so that we can make up our minds to put a stop to that sort of thing. I want to express the hope that if those people ever come here again, no matter under what pretext, no facilities will be given to them to make films of this nature which blacken South Africa abroad in this libellous fashion.

When the House adjourned for supper I was pointing out the connection between the horror film we saw this morning, “Sabotage in South Africa”, and the speech made by the hon. member for Hougton in this House last night. To my mind there is a very strong link between the two. I cannot but conclude that this horror film was inspired by a person who fled the country illegally—Patrick Duncan, the bosom friend and the ward of the hon. member for Orange Grove. I cannot but conclude that that horror film that we saw and that dreadful speech to which we had to listen to-night constitute an atrocity against the White people of South Africa. But I want to leave it at that.

As far as this Budget is concerned, I cannot do otherwise but associate myself with all the other hon. members who have congratulated the hon. the Minister on the excellent Budget that he has presented to the House. In regard to what the hon. member for Turffontein said this afternoon—that we are isolated—I want to point out that the aircraft of other countries still land at our airports, and ships of other countries still touch at our ports, money from other countries is still flowing into South Africa and immigrants are coming to South Africa as never before, so much so that we have a Minister and a Department of Immigration to-day. Speeches like the speech of the hon. member are aimed at deterring people by telling the world that we are isolated. Imports and exports are increasing. Money is coming into the country. The Orange River scheme, the building of a pipeline between Durban and Johannesburg and similar undertakings create an interest on the part of overseas’ investors to come to this country to invest their money here.

And the sharemarket is rising!

Perhaps the United Party is isolated from the Republic but the Republic as such is not isolated. The United Party and its policy are isolated from the minds of the electorate here. But I leave it at that.

I want to make only one plea on this occasion and that is in connection with soil conservation. All those who can assist in forming opinion in this country must try to create the correct attitude towards our common and permanent heritage, our only true capital investment—our soil. That part of the Republic which remains to the White man after certain areas have been given to the Bantu is land that we must develop to its maximum potential. There are three main requirements for soil conservation. In the first place it is necessary to promote the correct attitude in this regard. That attitude must be cultivated on the part of the child, the White man, the Black man, the Brown man—on the part of everyone. Our attitude towards the soil must be the correct one. We cannot make two morgen out of one morgen and that is why we have to increase the carrying capacity of one morgen. This can only be done if we follow a long-term policy in respect of agriculture. We must not exhaust our soil as swiftly as possible for our own benefit. Secondly, we need to know how to conserve the soil and to build up its fertility. This knowledge is obtained by research which is done by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and we are grateful for it. Thirdly, funds are needed because if we have the correct attitude and the necessary knowledge but we do not have the funds, that does not help either. That is why I want to ask for more money to be made available in the future. I am not criticizing what is already being done. We are grateful for it. By improving our soil we will be making a capital investment for our future generations. That is why I ask— and I make no apologies for doing so—for higher subsidies for soil conservation. I am not making a plea for our present-day farmers; I am not asking for this so that he can make larger profits. I see this rather as a capital investment by one generation for future generations. By means of an investment of this nature in the soil of South Africa, with the correct attitude, with the necessary knowledge of soil conservation and with the necessary funds for soil conservation I believe that all will be well with South Africa as long as we have a Government in power here that will do what it can for the good of South Africa.

The state of mind of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) interested me far more than what he had to say. His mind is so typical of the minds of so many members on the other side. He said, for instance, that he had no hope for the United Party because we had “geen gedagterigtings”. Why does he say that? I will say why. It is because hon. members on the other side have this amazing mentality that unless you oppose one extreme with another extreme, they seem to think there is no opposition. To them a thing is either black or white—there is nothing in between, no shades of political meaning. That is why. Because we are not an extreme party, he writes us off, because when we do not oppose their extreme policy with another extreme policy the United Party has no hope! Nothing illustrates more clearly that line of thinking than what he said immediately after that. Again and again we have heard from hon. members opposite that the honest opposition to their policies was that of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). But what did the hon. member for Wolmaransstad do to-night? He asked that the type of speech the hon. member for Houghton made last night, should be banned. That is the ridiculous position their thinking leads to! When they have what they regard as an honest policy against their policy, they want to ban it! On the other hand, if it is not extreme, then there is no opposition! Again and again we have heard from the opposite side that the only other direction in which we can go in South Africa is that represented by the hon. member for Houghton. But now they want to ban that direction.

The truth of the matter is that if you study all real democracies, you will find that they have advanced not by dogma but by adapting themselves to the facts of social, economic and human life. The policies of this side of the House are in accord with this and reality will still bring us into power because in the long run that is the only way in which you can advance along democratic lines: not according to impracticable dogma, but according to the principle of adapting yourself all the time to changing circumstances. But that is probably an idea which is too subtle for them to understand.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad also wanted to know what our attitude was to the film which we all saw this morning. I do not know why he asked that question because what we think of it was put so clearly by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). He said that that was analogous to the type of speech which was being made by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). That shows what we think of it! There is nothing more to it. [Interjections.] If we on this side do not appear to be so shocked by this picture as members on the other side are, it is because we are already so accustomed to the type of bias which we saw this morning, by the type of speeches we hear from members on the other side. When they compare the United Party with an organization such as Poqo, I say it is going further than this film went to-day. It is as totally biased as unreal as this picture was. But I leave this matter there.

I now want to come back to the Budget. The kindest thing that one can say about this Budget is that it was better than last year’s Budget. But then, last year’s Budget was not really a very good one because all the mistakes the Minister made then he admitted this year. My time is limited but I still should like to give him only two examples. This year the Minister has said that we must cut taxes and for the very good reason that there is not enough purchasing power or demand in the country. But if that is so this year, then surely it was the more so last year. On the Minister’s own showing the economy was more depressed last year than it is now. Surely that is all the more reason why he should have done it last year. Then there is this other important innovation in this Budget, namely that the Minister is swinging a large proportion of current expenditure to loan account. Surely, if that is the right thing to do this year—and we say it is—it was even more so last year.

But I did do that last year.

But only on a very minute scale. Let us compare the situation of this year with that of last year. Last year we stood before an era of greatly expanding liquidity in our economy. Therefore, it was all the more reason for the Minister to have financed as much of his current expenditure out of loan funds as was reasonable. This year the Minister himself admits that this year our liquidity is diminishing.

What is the difference between taking money from loan funds or out of taxation as far as spending power is concerned?

That depends upon circumstances, i.e. upon how much loanable money there is available. The fact of the matter is that at this stage last year there was more loanable money available than there is at this stage. So that if it is correct to follow that procedure this year, it would have been more correct to do it last year. This is one instance of the Minister not wanting to admit last year that our criticism was correct. If I remember correctly, he said last year when he had to reply to our criticism that there was really nothing to answer! But what is he doing now? He is tacitly accepting our criticism of last year! But this criticism was even more valid last year than it is this year.

But we must be thankful for small mercies. The fact that the Minister has accepted our criticism, even though it was more valid last year than this year, does not mean that we are against this change of direction. The economic fertilizer which the Minister now seeks to spread over the economic garden of South Africa, could have been spread with far more usefulness last year. But we must still ask ourselves whether he is now using the correct type of fertilizer and in the correct quantity. Is he using it for the right places? Before answering these questions, let us put to ourselves what the Americans call “the 64-dollar question”, namely “what is wrong in the garden of Eden”? That ought to be the real question. But here again the Minister has been very helpful because he has, to a large extent, already answered that question himself. He pointed out that what was basically wrong with South Africa was that our economic growth was too slow, too slow in relation to our economic potentialities. In fact, he has admitted, although very guardedly, the criticism which we have expressed during the past four years, namely that our purchasing power was too low, investment was too low and that our economic growth was too low. The effect of that on the people of South Africa is, of course, that their standards of living are either rising too slowly, or in many cases are stagnant. Another result was that we did not create sufficient jobs for our rapidly expanding population.

But I do not want to blame the Minister’s Budget entirely for this state his garden is in, because he is in this unfortunate position that he has to garden in a most inhospitable political climate. That is his real trouble. Let me give him one example of that. If he would trace our economic history of the past, he would find that the main component of our growth was Black labour. If he studies our economic growth of the past, he will find that whenever South Africa grew rapidly, we had to bring in a large amount of Black labour. Now he is committed to a policy of restricting that Black labour if not to reversing it. To talk in botanical terms, Mr. Speaker, that is equivalent to a gardener deciding that he cannot do with carbon in his plants anymore! The Minister must remember that plant life is, to a large extent, dependent on carbon because it gives the plant its structure. In the same way, our whole economy is dependent upon Black labour. And yet he is committed to a policy for restricting the use of that Black labour or for even taking it out of our economy altogether. Now if a gardener said he was going to take carbon out of his plants, people would think he was a bit scatty.

But yet the Minister is in a more favourable position than most gardeners in that whereas gardeners can do very little about the climate, he is in a position to influence that climate if he wishes to do so. I say that what is basically wrong with us, and that the Minister has admitted, is that our rate of economic growth is far too slow in relation to our potentialities. We are not providing sufficient jobs for the people. It has been one of the great myths of the Government, usually repeated most emphatically by the Minister and Deputy-Minister of Economic Affairs, that thanks to the Nationalist Government coming into power in 1948. we have had one of the most remarkable economic growths in the world. I think that is a fair summing up of the attitude of hon. members on the other side. But what are the facts? If we look up the facts, we find that far from having had a remarkable rate of economic growth, the opposite has happened. I should like to refer the Minister to calculations made in the “Commercial Opinion” of November, 1962, based on our official statistics of national income. There he will find that from 1912 to 1953—i.e. the first four decades of the existence of the Union of South Africa, we had a rate of growth which very nearly doubled the standard of living of the people—in other words their real income more or less doubled itself. That means that the wealth and welfare of the people increased at a rate of 2| per cent per annum. That was one of the fastest rates in the world, if not the fastest. I am unaware of any other Western country which have had this fabulous rate of growth over that period. We doubled the standard of living within 40 years. But what has happened since? When this Government took over in 1948, we were growing at a rate of about 3 per cent per annum real income per head. Through the momentum which was thereby imparted to the economy by the United Party Government, the Nationalist Party Government managed to keep up that rate for exactly five years, i.e. up to 1953 when we still continued to grow at the rate of 3 per cent. I am, of course, talking of real income per head. But what has happened since 1953? During the last ten years our rate of growth dropped from being the highest in the entire Western world to one of the lowest in the world, i.e. to a rate of 1+ per cent per annum. Other countries with rates as low as ours, are very perturbed about it—countries like the United Kingdom and America. They realize that they are losing the economic race in the world, and that if they loose the economic race, they will loose the military race.

What is happening in West Germany? Are they maintaining their rate of growth?

It dropped but is still more than twice as fast as ours— more than twice. For the last year, it was still of the order of 5 per cent. At any rate, it is still incredibly higher than ours.

So this myth that thanks to a strong Nationalist Government we have a healthy economy, reminds me of a story I heard many years ago of a boy at school who was asked by his teacher who created the ox. He replied that his father did so. The teacher then said he was wrong because it was the Creator who created the ox. Thereupon the little boy said the teacher was wrong because, he said, the Creator created the bull, whereas his father created the ox. Now, this Government can be taken to be the creator of our economy in exactly the same sense as the farmer. We had an economy of great vitality. But what have we got now? An economy that plods along with no real future. One should never cry over spilt milk, but it is interesting to note that were we able to maintain the rate of growth which obtained in 1948, dire poverty amongst our non-Whites would have largely been wiped out just as in the period from 1912 to 1953 poor Whitism was wiped out completely. Mr. Rupert said in Pretoria very recently that the greatest antidote to Communism was prosperity, prosperity which was shared by all sections. As I could gather from remarks which were made by the Minister of Justice and by the Prime Minister, most members opposite believe that you must fight Communism by an extension of the rule of “un ’’-law; in other words, you must constantly restrict the application of the rule of law.

Shared prosperity, Mr. Speaker, is the answer to Communism. Now. to what extent has our prosperity been shared in our society? In this connection, I should like to refer the Minister to one of the most interesting articles which has appeared recently in the S.A. Journal of Economics of June 1962. This article was written under the heading “Bantu wages in South Africa”, by the Chairman of the Wage Board. On page 96 you will find what I can only call “alarming” figures of the rate at which real wages have increased for the various races in private industry, over the period 1936 to 1961. Between 1936 and 1948, i.e. under a United Party Government, wages increased 34 per cent for White workers or at an annual rate of about 3 per cent per annum. During the same period Bantu wages increased by 65 per cent, i.e. at a rate of per cent per annum one of the highest rates in the world. The gap between skilled and unskilled wages were therefore being closed rapidly. But what happened in the ensuing 13 years? During the period 1948 to 1961, White wages increased by 32 per cent, i.e. not quite so fast as in the United Party days. But what was the position with Bantu wages? Bantu wages increased only by 11 per cent during that same period, i.e. not even 1 per cent per annum! Is that shared prosperity? Is that the way in which we are going to fight Communism? And what is more, it is amazing that the major portion of this increase of 11 per cent took place during the past two years, i.e. since the troubles of Langa and Sharpeville.

In that same article the Minister will find that the same type of trend took place in commerce. As a matter of fact, the Chambers of Commerce pointed to another alarming fact, namely that between 1951 and 1961 real wages of the Bantu on Railways dropped from R260 to R233. Let us reflect once more that were we able to maintain the rate of increase in this respect which applied between 1936 and 1948, then the poverty amongst Bantu industrial wages, as measured against Western standards, would now have been a thing of the past. And the facts indicate that the White workers would not have suffered as a result because in reality you cannot have a rapid rise in wages of Whites if there is not a corresponding rapid increase in the wages of unskilled workers. Certainly our farmers would have been far better off because they would then not have had these vast surpluses they are saddled with to-day. Also our industrial and commercial people would have been better off.

In the long run no nation can have sustained prosperity unless that prosperity is spread over all sections of the people. That is shown by the experience of countries all over the world. One of the reasons for this crisis in our purchasing power in South Africa is the inequality of the advance in the position of skilled and unskilled workers. That is one of the main reasons. Think of the advantages a rise in Bantu wages of another 50 per cent will hold out for our Minister of Foreign Affairs and our Minister of Information. It is ironical that if you wish to defend South Africa against the outside world to-day one of the best defences is to compare the standard of living of our Bantu with those in other parts of Africa. While it is true that the standard of living of our Bantu is incomparably higher, the ironical thing is that the United Party is largely responsible for that, because it was attained under a United Party Government. That then is another example of this Government defending its policies with the results of United Party performances!

We on this side are the first to admit that we cannot have full trade union development for many years yet in this country because so many of our people still are in a primitive stage of development. You cannot, therefore, have trade unions in the normal Western sense for these. But that is all the more reason why the Government should follow a definite income policy. If they claim to be the guardian of the unorganized worker, then surely it is their duty to see that those who do not have bargaining power get their fair share of our prosperity.

You should preach that to the gold mines!

The case of the gold mines is different and the Minister must not try to distract me. But if they can increase their wages, let them do so. If ever there were a country needing an income policy, it is this country. The aim of that should be to see that our prosperity is equally shared. That will be another powerful antidote to Communism. And if we really want to fight Communism. there is the necessity of creating jobs for the people. We should not become a nation of unemployed. Sufficient jobs should, therefore, be created for all. But what has happened? It seems that until 1957 our economy was moving at a rate which could absorb any increase in population. But since then we have had stagnation. Any objective observer has to admit that we are simply not creating sufficient jobs for our rapidly increasing population. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) already pointed out that during the past 4 years our labour force must have increased by the order of 10 per cent whereas our employment index show that employment rose by only 4 per cent. Surely here is proof that we are not developing fast enough to give employment to all our workers.

I know that the Minister pointed out that unemployment dropped by 34 per cent during the last 12 months. But these figures are confined only to Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics, and then only to those who bothered to register.

I used the same yardstick last year.

The fact of the matter is that the registered unemployed is only a fraction of the total number of unemployed in this country. Even the Minister did not refer to Bantu unemployed. We know, however, that we do not have comprehensive figures in this respect. But as for Coloured, Asiatics and Whites frequently only those who stand to benefit by unemployment payments, bother to register. A very large number of unemployed do not under these circumstances register at all. There is no advantage to them in doing so. In fact, that is to their disadvantage because they cannot get jobs as quickly. Let us take unemployment amongst the Bantu. The Bantu is, after all, still a part of our population—we have not made them foreigners yet. Now, the register show that there are 74,000 unemployed. However, in a survey which was carried out by the Department of Native Affairs, which the Chairman of the Wage Board referred to that indicated there were no less than 200,000 adult male Natives unemployed as squatters in rural areas and 160,000 juvenile and adult males unemployed in the urban areas. That gives a total number of 360,000 unemployed. So when hon. members opposite talk about us having the lowest unemployment figures in the world, they do that by shutting their eyes to the unemployment amongst our non-Europeans in the country because if we take these into account we will have one of the highest rates of unemployment in the world. It is against this background …

Where do you get those figures?

The Journal of Economics of June 1962.

Is it from your own statistics?

It is an estimate made by the Native Affairs Department. It is against this background that we have to judge this Budget. It is quite clear that the Minister’s main objective should have been to accelerate economic growth as far as possible. I admit that it is not enough to have a good Budget to restore confidence in this country. We will have to undo so many of the restrictive racial laws which have been passed over the last 14 years because it is the cumulative effect of those laws that has destroyed confidence so largely in South Africa. Even within those limits I think the Minister, had he been more optimistic, should have tried through his Budget to stimulate our economic growth more. It is amazing that the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council talks about economic budgeting, and the Minister ignores it. By economic budgeting I understand that the Government set itself a target, the rate at which the economy should be capable of growing. The Minister of Finance must indicate that target and budget accordingly.

If one is to judge from the tax estimates for the next year the Minister does not expect rapid economic growth next year. If one is to judge from the tax estimates he does not even expect the economic growth over the last year to be maintained because he budgets for an increase of R26,000,000 compared with the real increase of last year of the order of R57,000,000. Does the Minister expect the growth to slow down? Had the Minister budgeted for a much bigger national income he could have given even more tax concessions. He could have given the full R36,000,000 as the hon. member for Constantia suggested. He could have increased the wages of the unskilled labourers of whom there are hundreds and thousands on the Railways. The Minister is obviously afraid of inflation if he gives too many tax concessions and if he increases wages too much. But, Sir, you only get inflation if your rate of growth is not fast enough. Surely the Minister realizes that? If you have a rapid rate of growth you cover your extra expenditure out of that growth; you do not have to increase your rates and taxes. I sometimes think that this Government’s policies scare this Minister almost more than they scare me. I remember last year suggesting to the Minister that he should budget for a national income increase of 10 per cent. He pooh-poohed the idea and told me that I was irresponsible and that it would lead to inflation. Sir, what growth have we really had? We have had a growth of 7 per cent. I suggest to the Minister that he had followed my advice he would probably had had a growth of 10 per cent. If you look at the figures for last year that Budget was not a stimulating Budget at all. What stimulated growth was the rapid rise in gold production and the fact that exports kept up very well. That was the real stimulant to the economy not the Minister’s Budget. I suggest that had the Minister shown more confidence he could have cut taxes more; he could have increased the wages. That would have been an active contribution on the part of the Budget to a long-term income policy anyway. If the Minister sets an example to all private employers and to the gold mines that he mentioned himself, by increasing the wages of their own unskilled employees he will be setting a very fine example. It has been shown over and over again that if you get the economic growth by cutting tax rates and by increasing wages it does not lead to inflation. You only get inflation if you do not have economic growth and the Government expands its expenditure to a great extent. It is quite a simple question: You increase your demand and if your supply on the other side increases proportionately you do not have inflation. So I do not think the Minister must make the mistake of staring himself blind at the marginal gold mines. He must not be afraid to encourage the economic growth fast enough.

I also want to suggest that if the Minister really had confidence in South Africa he should have done something to relax capital control even further. Surely the Minister realizes that despite the superficial talk of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs that we are now very largely independent of foreign capital, for really rapid economic growth we still need foreign capital in large doses. The moment we start growing rapidly we will see that need all the more. You are not going to get this flow of capital in large amounts unless you relax control. We were told by the previous speaker that there was industrial expansion, that confidence had returned completely and that millions of pounds were again flowing into South Africa. Why did the Government not show a corresponding confidence and relax capital control to some extent? I cannot quote it to the Minister, because of the shortness of the time at my disposal, but I suggest to him that if he wants to read a very interesting article he should read the article by Brand from the Pretoria University in the South African Economic Journal of December 1962 in which he shows the whole fallacy of this idea that we can be independent of foreign capital if we really want to grow fast economically. The moment we start growing fast economically there will be such a demand for capital goods that we will again need foreign capital, apart from the know-how and the experience and the skilled labour that comes in with such capital.

Who says we do not want foreign capital?

I only have one minute left, otherwise I shall quote the speech of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in which he played down the importance of foreign capital. He said it was necessary but not very necessary.

He was referring to funk capital.

That is the very point. We need that capital to restore confidence in the country, that is to say if the Minister has confidence in his Government’s policies. If he has not, I cannot blame him of course.

You are not helping much to restore confidence.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Minister and the Prime Minister showed some concern. The only bottle-neck in our economy, as they pointed out, that might lead to inflation was skilled labour. It is rather ironical to think that those two gentlemen are largely responsible for the shortage of skilled labour because they killed our immigration policy. Even so, I say that if we really grow rapidly enough economically we will get the skilled labour from overseas. It is again a question of confidence. I do not know of a single industrialist who, when he really required skilled labour from overseas and went to the trouble of advertising, did not get that skilled labour in the end. There again I think the Minister must show slightly more confidence. I can just sum up this Budget as a Budget which reflects the lack of confidence of the Minister in the future growth of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I could not quite grasp the joke of the hon. member about the bull and the ox, but I take it that he meant that if they had introduced this Budget it would have been a bull of a Budget, but now that the Nationalist Government has introduced it it is a budget which lacks certain essential organs. I can just say that my experience as a farmer—and I am certain that the experience of my hon. friends who are farmers will be the same—is that when one wants to turn a bad bull into something good one must make him an ox.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago when the Government decided to hold an election it was accused by the Opposition of having been compelled to hold an election at that time, because if it allowed this House to live its normal life, which meant up to 1963, the country’s economic position would be so bad that the Government would not dare to hold an election because it would already have lost it. We have now reached the year in which we would normally have held an election. I think it is also admitted by hon. members opposite that the economic position of the country to-day is particularly rosy. It is said that the tempo of economic growth has slowed down. I do not want to argue about that; the hon. the Minister will surely deal with that. I can just say this, however, that we can consider ourselves fortunate to be able to live in a country with such a flourishing economy.

I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Government on the Budget they have introduced. I almost want to say that it was a bull of a budget. This Budget affects South West Africa directly and indirectly. It is true that South West Africa controls its own finances, but there are many measures adopted here which directly affect it. I am thinking of customs and excise. When customs and excise dues are increased here, they must also be increased in South West Africa; when they are reduced here they are also reduced there. Therefore we will now reap the benefit of the reduction in the price of petrol and crude oil. That will mean much to South West Africa because it is a country of long distances where transportation is one of the most expensive items in the economic life of South West Africa.

Another thing which is integrated is our transportation system. When concessions are granted here in regard to transportation it also affects South West. We have the Railways, the Airways and the Road Motor Services. I can assure hon. members that when a concession is granted here we are only too grateful. Another thing that affects us is pensions. South West in fact pays for the pensions of its officials and for old-age pensions, but when an increase is granted in pensions here it must also be granted there. So the pensioners there also derive benefit from the increase granted here. Then there are salaries. When salaries are increased here, for officials or for teachers, we in South West Africa must adapt ourselves to that because our public service is integrated with that of the Republic. Although our education is not directly integrated with education in the Republic, we must follow suit when teachers’ salaries are increased here, otherwise we simply will not get any teachers. The education system as a whole is integrated with that of the Republic. We have the same curricula; we send our children to the universities, the colleges, the technical colleges and the technical schools of the Republic. Whenever any concession is made here which improves the position of those institutions, we benefit directly.

Where we are integrated even more is in the marketing of our products. The position to-day is that the dairy products of South West are pooled with those of the Republic and are marketed by the Republic. South West Africa is subject to the levies and contributes its share to the pool and to the funds which are levied. South West Africa derives advantage from the marketing facilities offered here, and we are very grateful for it. We bear our burdens, but we also derive benefits. Something which is of great importance to us is the marketing of our meat which intimately integrated with the marketing of meat in the Republic by means of legislation passed by this House and also by the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa. I will go so far as to say that if South West Africa was not allowed to market its meat in the Republic, we would certainly have great trouble. If we had to be dependent on an overseas market only, we would, for example, during the period when we had foot-and-mouth disease, not have been able to market a single carcass on the overseas market. It is therefore a great concession made to us and a great privilege we have to be able to market our meat in the Republic. In spite of all the difficulties we had during the past year, we were still able to send 200,000 cattle to the markets in the Republic. There was a backlog of over 100,000 head of cattle from the previous year, and for this year it is anticipated that 300,000 head of cattle will be available, with the result that in the coming year we will have about 400,000 head of cattle available for marketing in the Republic. I foresee trouble, Sir, if everything possible is not done by the bodies responsible for marketing. I may say that delegates from South West and I to-day together had consultations with both the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and with their technical men. I may say that we were received with the greatest sympathy, and that I have confidence that the necessary measures will be taken shortly to comply as far as possible with our requirements in regard to the marketing of cattle from South West Africa. I understand, of course, that it is not possible to over-stock the market and to send all those animals there simultaneously without lowering prices appreciably. But I want to appeal to the farmers in the Republic to realize that South West Africa is not a separate area and that its farmers are not a separate community, but that we are one community in so far as the marketing of our meat is concerned, and that they should not feel that South West Africa is encroaching on their markets, and that they should give us the opportunity to market our animals in the way they market theirs, because we have become a single unit in so far as marketing is concerned. We are already restricted because South West Africa is subject to a quota, and at the moment we can sell our animals in only two places, whilst the farmers of the Republic are free to market their animals anywhere. They do not need permits and have no quotas and they can market when and where they like. We also had the opportunity to abolish quotas and permits, and South West Africa would have been able to do it, but there were other practical difficulties which prevented us from doing so in the interest of the farmers and also of other organizations concerned with it. Therefore I just want to express the hope that the measures which have now been effected will prove to be successful.

I just want to direct one appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. I am aware of the fact that he has appointed a Committee, a Cold Storage and Abattoir Committee, to investigate the possibility of providing refrigeration space and storage facilities. I should appreciate it if that Committee could speed up their work. I know that it is a difficult and comprehensive task which has been entrusted to them, but our need for these things is so great that I do hope the Minister will see to it that this Committee completes its work as soon as possible. I have the fullest confidence that they will be able to make recommendations which will alleviate our position.

The marketing of meat takes place from day to day, from month to month and from year to year; now you have shortages and then you have to cope with surpluses; you have to contend with droughts and you have to cope with food-and-mouth disease; you are concerned with control and with restrictions that you may not be aware of in advance. Therefore it is impossible to say that a method should now be evolved which for all time will ensure that there will never be a shortage or a surplus.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but I do feel there is a matter I would like to touch on to indicate to hon. members, particularly the farmer members in the House, the number of problems a person has to cope with when he is suddenly affected by the elements of nature. I made a speech here last year in which I referred to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in South West Africa, and how it affected us. I am now able to say that the campaign waged against foot-and-mouth disease in South West is the biggest one of its kind that has ever been waged in any part of the world. I also believe that it was most successful. I do not think that more success has been achieved in auy other campaign than was achieved in South West Africa. I am able to say that to-day there no longer is any active foot-and-mouth infection in South West Africa, thanks to the efforts of everybody concerned with it, the South West African Administration, the Agricultural Department of South West and its officials, as well as the Department of Agricultural Technical Services of the Republic, under the leadership of the Minister. There was the closest and heartiest co-operation, between all these various bodies. Neither time nor money was spared in combating this dangerous disease. Nor was it merely a question of money I may inform the House that this campaign has cost South West Africa close on R5,000,000 up to new in direct expenditure which cannot be recouped. That is expenditure in respect of payment for mileage travelled, vaccines, inspections, vehicles, and roads which were made. That is really money cast into the water, because it can never be recouped. Then there was also indirect expenditure. When such an epidemic strikes, things happen which could never have been predicted, and which have to be dealt with. Marketing immediately comes to a standstill; the income of the farmers is stopped; animals may not be moved. And if in addition one has a drought there is the danger that the animals will all die on the farm. And when one has to, or is allowed to, move the animals, it may not be done on the hoof but must be done by transporting them. Fodder must be supplied if the farmers cannot trek. One must put up camps and erect fences to keep out the game. I may just say that in South West Africa we erected more than 1,000 miles of fences to keep out the game—8 feet 6 inches in height, with 16 strands. That was certainly no small task. I saw the other day that such a great fuss was being made of the fact that 350 miles of fences had been erected along the Kruger National Park. Sir, that is child’s play compared to what we did in South West. It is indeed asking a great deal to have a farmer collect all his animals for inspection every fortnight, particularly when the animals are in poor condition. Stock sales came to a standstill, and the farmers’ credit at the banks was exhausted. The Administration was faced with a task which would normally have proved impossible, but the Administration tackled that task, and thanks to the assistance of everybody concerned we succeeded in bringing our farmers through that period. The revenue of the Administration suffered because the interest and instalments of farmers who owed money to the Land Board were suspended, because the interest and instalments of the Land Bank were suspended. The Administration lent the banks R2,000,000 to assist them in not curtailing the credit of the farmers. Hundreds of thousands of rand were left to the co-operatives, to assist them so that they would not stop the credit of the farmers. Hundreds of thousands of rand were lent to the canning factories to assist them in slaughtering the animals and canning the meat. No money was spared, Sir, to assist the farmers. I may say that we have now been blessed with splendid rains; the farmers are smiling again and their prospects are bright. Nothing gladdens the heart of a farmer more than rain. They have big debts, but I know the farmers of South West, and of South Africa. We need not be afraid of losing a penny of the money lent to them. We give them time and they will pay their debts. They will get on their feet again, and again become prosperous farmers in South West Africa.

I just want to mention a final point, and I want to address my remarks to the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. He announced last year that he was busy establishing a research station specially adapted for research in regard to combating foot-and-mouth disease. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us how much progress has been made. I may say that we were reasonably successful in regard to the vaccine we used in South West Africa, but we are not convinced that it was 100 per cent successful. In some cases we had to inoculate twice. But it is as a result of using that vaccine that to-day we have managed to overcome that disease. If I may issue a word of warning, it is that the hon. the Minister should do everything in his power to have an effective vaccine developed as soon as possible against this dreaded disease. It is not impossible for it to break out again; it is not impossible for it to cross the borders, and to break out in the heart of South Africa. I think it is a tremendous achievement that we succeeded in not allowing a single animal to enter the Republic to spread foot-and-mouth disease here. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that our people did not always accept these control measures with a smile. It has already been said that the veterinarians to-day rule South West Africa, but as one who has knowledge of this matter I must say that, however hard it may be, one must abide by the advice given by the technicians. When eventually success has been achieved, one is glad that one did so.

I want to conclude by expressing my thanks to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and his Department for what they did, and to the Government of the Republic for the contributions it made. Once again, my heartiest thanks to the hon. the Minister of Finance for the concessions he granted which are applicable also to South West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that has become very clear to me in this debate it is the unwillingness on the part of hon. members opposite to take part in an agricultural debate. We have been discussing agricultural matters for the whole afternoon and since a quarter past two only one single member on the other side has participated in the debate. I give credit to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk)—I am sorry that she is not here at the moment—for having done so. The hon. members who usually talk about agricultural matters are not here. Where is the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) who viewed the matter in such a serious light that earlier this Session he moved a motion of no confidence in our two Ministers of Agriculture? Why did the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) not take part in the debate? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) does have the gumption to be present. It seems as though he will fight the matter to the bitter end.

It is a pity Mr. Speaker, that when one discusses agricultural matters one does not have people before one who differ from one in regard to this matter. I just want to say that to generalize in a debate is a dangerous thing but to generalize under the Agricultural Vote is far more dangerous. That is the mistake made by hon. members opposite. There has not been a definite attack on this side of the House in regard to some or the other commodity or in regard to some matter or other so that we can debate the matter and so that the hon. the Minister can reply and make a statement to the country. That simply has not happened. It has so often happened this year that hon. members have generalized and said that the prices of products have been falling, but that has merely been generalization.

But it is true.

If the hon. member was a farmer his experience would be just the opposite. If he tells me that meat prices are falling, if he says that the grading is incorrect, if he says that the producer’s price is incorrect or that the consumer’s price is wrong then we can argue. If he has something to say about the wheat price we can argue, but the hon. member makes use of generalities; that is the way hon. members on that side attack the Department of Agriculture. This illustrates one of two things, Mr. Speaker; a total inability to make a point or else an unsympathetic attitude towards the matter. So unsympathetic, that the hon. member does not even have to think about the matter for a while to find out where the fault lies.

The hon. member for Drakenberg said a few things in passing that I want to deal with briefly. Contrary to expectations, the hon. member was a little more careful at the start. She said amongst other things that things were going badly with everyone except with the wool farmers. But that is not true, Mr. Speaker. There was another statement that she made. She said that the farmers were left to their own fate. That is simply not true, Mr. Speaker. In the short time at my disposal I just want to mention a few examples which hold good for the whole country. This is in support of what I said about the generalizations of hon. members opposite in their attack on the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. It was stated in the no-confidence debate that there was no planning, that there was no research. I want to take my own constituency. Take for example the basic research that is done in connection with the skin industry. What a wonderful dividend this has produced for the farmers! Do you know what prices we are getting to-day as a result of that research and guidance given to the farmer? Does this look as though the farmer has been left to his fate? Does this look as though things are going badly with all the farmers, except the wool farmers? Skin prices were never as high in the history of the industry in the Republic of South Africa than they were at the most recent auctions.

I want to make a further point apropos the remarks of the hon. member for Drakensberg who said that farmers were left to their fate by the Departments of Agriculture. You know, we have already had quite a few years of drought and the karakul ewes now producing these skins were bred over a period of 25 to 30 years. When the drought was at its worst it was this Government and these Departments of Agriculture that stepped in when those animals were threatened with complete extermination. These Departments and the Government stepped in and supplied them with water and transported them right across the northwest Cape. The Department also supplied them with water in the Kalahari otherwise they would have died. It is those same ewes which are producing the results and the dividends for us to-day because the Government did not leave the farmer in the lurch. I mention this as further proof that things are not going well with the wool farmers only but they are also going as well with the karakul skin farmers as never before in the history of the skin industry.

But I have not yet finished. I want to return to the statement that the farmers were left in the lurch. When we had difficulty in cultivating cotton along the Orange River and when the factories could not take all our cotton, research was applied and a new cotton was cultivated along the Orange River by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. When the cotton market overseas collapsed because of subsidized cotton with which we could not compete after having being able to compete on equal terms in the past, and when we could not dispose of the cotton, it was this Government that did not leave the cotton farmer and the cotton industry in the lurch. Because of negotiations between the textile industrialists and the Department, the cotton growers along the Orange River are paid a price which is as high as has ever been the case before in normal marketing years. Not only has the farmer not been left in the lurch—which was the wild allegation of the hon. member for Drakensberg—but progress has also been made by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to enable the farmer to obtain two crops on one morgen of land each year. He first plants wheat and then he can plant a quick-growing cotton on the same lands. In this way he gets two crops from the same piece of land. Does this indicate that the farmers have been left in the lurch? It shows the hollowness of that argument and also shows that not only are the wool farmers paid a good price, but the cotton farmer is paid a reasonable price too. Things are not so easy, but the price is still better than the price for lucerne or anything else, except sultanas.

This brings me to another point. In order to prove how wild and far fetched the allegations of the hon. member are, I want to say that when we had trouble with our sultana production in 1958 because of frost, the farmers simply went on planting at that stage although they were continually suffering setbacks. But then we called in research. Once again the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in co-operation with the Dried Fruit Control Board did research in connection with the combating of frost and since 1958 frost damage has become a thing of the past and frost is being effectively combated. Since that time production has risen from 2,700 tons to 4,700 tons which was the figure for last season. During the previous season the farmers along the Orange River made an average of R686 per morgen, and this included all the recent plantings, all the land which was added and which was not then in full production. R686 per morgen throughout the whole area! But I want to mention a few exceptional cases, where over three years farmers have shown an average yield of R 1,400 per morgen! And then hon. members say that this Government has left the farmers in the lurch, has left them to their fate, and they say that it is only the wool farmers who can make a good living! What a far-fetched thing to say in a serious debate, in a responsible Chamber like the House of Assembly of South Africa! This is what one finds when people who merely stare blindly at one aspect of the matter take part in a debate. What they contend is not true. I thought that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) would say I was wrong when I referred to the meat prices, but he was silent. I thought that I could provoke him but he remained silent.

I want to raise a matter which has always been a source of friction in connection with the marketing of meat. I must raise this point because apparently we cannot expect any constructive criticism from the other side. If we have to depend upon the criticism of the Opposition then I feel sorry for South Africa. There is one point in regard to which we have always had trouble and that is the very large number of grades that we have. We have said that this simply does not work. The consumers never derive any benefit from it nor do the farmers; the advantage of the system disappears somewhere along the line. I am pleased to be able to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing this evening on the fact that the large number of grades are gradually being done away with. What has happened? As far as lamb is concerned, prime and super grade have been grouped into one grade, and nobody can complain in this regard. It is one grade lower. In the case of mutton we also have the grouping of the super and prime grades into one prime grade. As far as beef is concerned two grades have also been grouped together; grades four and five have been grouped together as one grade and as far as pork is concerned, grades three and four have been grouped into one grade—a third grade. This shows that progress is also being made in this regard. We are gradually following a policy of adjustment to see what can be done and what is best for the country.

In this connection I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. I see that the meat committee made representations to the Minister saying that where we have to deal with a levy of 90c for 100 lbs. of meat, lightweight or heavyweight, this is not sufficient and that the levy on the heavier carcasses should be increased. I do not want to tell the hon. the Minister not to consider this request but I want to ask him not to agree to it. My view is that this must simply not be done because all my lamb carcasses which were objected to on the grounds that they were overweight were sold this year at 25c, 24c and 23c on the open market. I think the lowest price that I got was 20c on the open market. They say that they buy up this meat but they did not buy up one of those carcasses. That is why I say I cannot see why the levy should not be calculated on a sliding scale. Let it stay as it is although I would like to see the levy on the lightweight carcasses removed. I also want to make another request. Although slaughterings are gradually increasing, it is noticeable that there has been no increase per unit consumption on the part of the public; the position is rather static; unit consumption dropped by about 1 lb. of meat from 1960 to 1961. That is why I want to ask that when this sort of thing is done the Meat Board must remember that it has to follow a long-term scheme which will stimulate consumption on the part of the broad mass of the public. The system that they are now considering will certainly not stimulate it. Statistics show that the consumption of beef has increased because—this is my conclusion—there are cheaper cuts. I want to make another request. I want to say that we have to deal with a marketing problem in this country. We are looking for markets internally or outside of the country while we have a broad mass of the people on our doorstep who can consume very much more meat. At the moment the consumption stands at an average of 5 oz. per day. That is why in determining the price of meat we should rather follow a system which is aimed at the expansion of the internal market so that the farmers will have a larger market. It will not help at all if the price is increased out of all proportion and we find ourselves with no market. People will eat more fish and then we will have to be satisfied with a smaller market. That is not a sound policy to follow, and so I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to accede to the request of the meat committee which is again trying to impose a higher levy on the heavyweight carcasses.

My time is very limited but there is another point that I want to make. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) moved a motion of no-confidence in the Ministers of Agriculture during the course of this Session. He is so interested in the discussion of agricultural matters that he is not present here at all. The hon. member made a wild statement to the effect that farmers must be satisfied with 40c for first grade lucerne because of a drop in prices. But that is simply not true. The hon. member ought to make sure of his facts. We have a lucerne industry committee which fixes lucerne prices. There was an underwriting of 6d. by one co-operative but the co-operative of which I am a member and which easily handles 50 per cent of the industrial lucerne of the country never paid out less than 6s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. per 100 lbs. during 1961 and 1962 while the maximum price was fixed at 7s. 9d. for first grade lucerne. If there is a surplus of plus/minus 60,000 tons it is not too bad. The hon. member launched an attack on the Minister in moving this motion of no-confidence and then he based his arguments on wrong information. His informant gave him the wrong information. That was not the right thing to do. How can an Opposition make use of such arguments to make out a case against our Ministers? My Chief Whip has warned me that my time is up, but I hope that the House will concede me this last remark.

I live in an area which is subject to drought and I know what our farmers have gone through. I would like to elaborate in this regard but time does not allow me to do so at the moment. I want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister of Finance for the sizable amount that he has made available for the rehabilitation of farmers because there are farmers in that area living on farms which have had little or no rain for eight years. Only the desert wind blows there. The farmers are trekking. Some of them have only been on their farms for three months out of a period of six years. That is why I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister of Finance for having made such a generous amount available for rehabilitation purposes.

We have almost reached the end of the Budget debate for 1963. We like very much to listen to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). He is a person who came to this House with a reputation as an economist and in the few years that he has been in this House he has proved to us that he is very interested in economics and in the meantime has built up a reputation for himself in that when he makes a speech, he proves that he has considered his case and that he has made a study of his subject. But we want to issue a warning to the hon. member for Jeppes this evening. He is a young member and this warning may perhaps help him. We want to tell the hon. member for Jeppes that he must be careful not to follow the same path in this House that the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has followed over the years so that eventually just as little notice of his views and statements in regard to financial matters is taken as is taken in this country to-day of the views of the hon. member for Constantia.

But the hon. the Minister of Finance follows his suggestions year after year.

In speaking about the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Jeppes said amongst other things—

We want to tell the hon. member for Jeppes that we sympathize with him. We also accept the fact that the political climate in which he has to make his speech and in which he has to air his views is not the climate in which he would like to speak. He usually has a more pleasant and more fruitful climate when he does not act as the member for Jeppes but as chairman of the Netherlands Bank of South Africa. He then gives us a more reliable picture of the economy of South Africa.

Is the hon. member going to reply to him?

I hope that that hon. member will remain silent. Poqo no longer wants to listen to him in the Transkei.

Poqo has never listened to me.

The hon. member for Jeppes said this of the Budget—

We have had a number of opinions in this regard from other people, from the Press, from financiers and others, but for the sake of the hon. member for Jeppes I want this evening to give him the views of a few people, views to which I am sure the country pays more attention and of which more notice is taken than the views of the hon. member for Jeppes. In the first place I want to refer to a newspaper which is certainly not well disposed towards this Minister and this Government and which often expresses criticism which is not justified, a newspaper which is always on the lookout for something to use against this Government and this Minister. In its issue of 21 March, the day after the Budget was presented, this newspaper announced the Budget in the following terms—

Industry, wine farmers, trade unionists and old-age pensioners joined the ordinary taxpayer in welcoming Dr. Dönges’s “booster” Budget, aimed at injecting an additional R13.6 million into the general economy.

In spite of the fact that he has provided for a record peacetime expenditure of R157,000,000 on Defence, the Minister has produced a popular Budget, the only criticism so far being that he has not been bold enough and that some of his tax concessions fall short of expectations.

What newspaper is that?

This is a newspaper circulating in the Eastern Cape and the United Party depends upon its support. It is the Eastern Province Herald, a newspaper on which the candidature of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) depends. This newspaper printed the views of Mr. Meter, President of the Federated Chamber of Industries, and stated—

The newspaper also gave the views of Mr. Jan Marais, but I do not think that the party opposite attaches much value to his views because it does not suit them to do so. They will say again that he is a person who supports this Government and I would prefer not to quote him. Perhaps I should also not mention the views of Mr. André du Toit. But then I want to quote the financial correspondent of the Eastern Province Herald who had the following to say—

He went on to say—

Has the hon. member to rely on an English newspaper for his speech?

What I am proving—and the United Party cannot deny it—is that notwithstanding the fact that they have been criticizing this Budget for four days and trying to suggest that this Budget is not welcomed in the country, the English Press and their own supporters welcome this Budget. Of course, that does not suit the United Party. But let us deal with the views of this newspaper itself. I do not want to read everything; I merely want to quote a few passages from it in order to show the United Party what the view of their Press is in this regard. In its leading article the newspaper describes the Budget as a “workmanlike Budget”.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the views of this newspaper in connection with this Budget. I want to tell the hon. member for Jeppes what the opinion of the newspaper is in this regard. Will you permit me to give one quotation?

No, the hon. member knows the rule.

Then I shall leave it at that but I want to say that the leading article in this newspaper praises the Budget and I must admit that on this occasion I agree with it.

Give us your own opinion.

The view of this newspaper as far as this Budget is concerned is that it is in the interests of South Africa and that it is welcomed by all sections of society, by the farmers, by the workers, by industrialists and by the Chambers of Commerce. The hon. member for Jeppes did not make any impression in trying to belittle this Budget. I want now to deal with some of his arguments. As an economist and as a person who is used to working with figures, he tried to prove that during the period of office of the National Government, South Africa had not made the progress which was made during the period of office of the United Party or progressed at the same rate. He then showed that for every year during the period of office of the United Party White wages rose by 3 per cent while Bantu wages rose by 5 per cent. He argued that from 1948 to 1961 White wages rose at about the same rate but his objection was that Bantu wages rose only by an average of 1 per cent per annum during that period and he tried to blame the Government for this fact. In the same breath he said that Bantu wages in South Africa should be raised by 50 per cent if we wanted to combat Communism.

The hon. member did not understand me.

It is very easy for the hon. member to say that I did not understand him. He is usually very lucid in his reasoning and I cannot see why it is that I should not have understood him. I want to put this question to him: Is this Government the largest employer of Bantu labour in our country? Is it the fault of this Government that Bantu wages have only risen by 1 per cent—if his figures are correct?

The Government is the largest employer.

I think that an economist of his calibre ought to reconsider that statement. I want to ask whether he is in favour of suggesting to the employers of Bantu labour in our country that they should raise Bantu wages by 50 per cent on the basis of our present economic position?

But I did not say that. The hon. member understood nothing of what I said.

I want to ask the hon. member if he will be prepared to tell or suggest to the farmers—who according to the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia are in such dire straits—to grant a wage increase of 5 per cent? I also want to ask the hon. member what the position is on his own farm and in regard to his own employees? I want to ask how he can justify this contention and I want him to explain to us how the farmers can continue to produce at a profit if their labour expenses increase by 50 per cent, having regard to the fact that the farmers have mainly to rely upon Bantu labour?

May I put a question to the hon. member? Must I take it then that the hon. member is opposed to an increase in Bantu wages? I said “if it rose at the rate….

No, the hon. member cannot draw his own conclusions from my statement that an increase of 50 per cent in the wages of Bantu workers in the agricultural industry will place the agricultural industry in dire straits or suggest that by that I meant that wages should not be increased. Indeed, they are rising steadily. The hon. member must not draw the wrong inferences. I want to deal with another point in regard to his speech. He wanted to suggest that the unemployment figure in South Africa was high and he tried to prove this in pursuance of the fact that Bantu unemployed are not registered. He said that there were 360,000 unemployed Bantu. I want to put this question to him: If his figure is correct is he sure that all of those people need work and that they all want to be employed? Is he aware of the fact that even in our reserves and in cities, there are many of those people who are work-shy, as indeed he said, and who do not want work? He cannot try to suggest that it is the fault of the Government that those people are without work. I want to deal with one last point made by the hon. member. He said that the Minister should have shown more confidence in South Africa and should have relaxed import control. But the hon. member neglected to tell us how much capital he wanted the Government still to invest. How far must the control of capital be relaxed in order to prove the confidence of this Government in South Africa? No, if there is a Government which has confidence in South Africa and has proved it by means of this Budget, by means of the policy it is implementing, by means of the money it has invested in South Africa—as has again been illustrated in regard to important schemes like the Orange River scheme, Sasol, Iscor and other expansion that is taking place—it is this National Government. It is this National Government that has the confidence of the electorate of South Africa in that at each election the Government is returned to power more strongly. No, as an older member I want to tell the hon. member for Jeppes that he is a member who can be very useful in this House. He has had the proper training for it but the hon. member must not allow the political climate in which he airs his views on the Budget to influence him in such a way that eventually he is not able to give us his real views on the Budget and instead gives us an opinion which is different from the opinion that he would give as the president of the Netherlands Bank. That is all I have to say to the hon. member I come now to the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia the fourth leg of which reads as follows—

When the hon. member for Constantia moved this amendment he said that other members of his party would explain this leg of the amendment. Those of us who are particularly interested in agriculture have sat here now since Monday and in a few minutes time this debate will come to an end. Out of the whole of the United Party which contended that it would gain the support of the farmers by suddenly acting as the champions of the farmers, only one speaker spoke about agriculture—the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), and that hon. member has been conspicuous by her absence this evening. I expect that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) will also participate in this debate and discuss agricultural matters but I want hon. members to note the stage at which he will discuss agriculture. You see, they are so vulnerable when discussing agricultural matters that they see to it that the person who has to speak about agriculture is the last speaker, so that nobody can reply to him. But I want to come back to the hon. member for Drakensberg even though she is not present. Before I deal with her views on agriculture I want to dwell for a few moments on another matter she raised here which has nothing to do with agriculture. She was very indignant here this afternoon because she thought that the hon. the Prime Minister had done her an injustice by saying that she said that when she thought, she thought about White people and not about Kaffirs. The hon. member took particular exception to the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister should have attributed a remark about “Kaffirs” to her. I want to put this question to hon. members opposite in the absence of the hon. member for Drakensberg: Will they deny that the hon. member for Drakensberg has stated repeatedly and at more than one place that this Government uses the term “Bantu” but that she was taught to talk about the Kaffirs? Will they deny that she has said that this Government is sharing South Africa with the Kaffirs? Will they deny that she and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) who is also conspicuous by his absence, were the ones to accuse this Government of being “Kafferboeties”? No, the hon. member for Drakensberg was unnecessarily annoyed and indignant because the hon. the Prime Minister did not do her an injustice.

It was all for show.

Yes, that was what it really was. She was playing a role and 1 want to predict that this Session will end and when we travel through the platteland again we will find that the hon. member for Drakensberg will again be holding meetings there and 1 predict that her accusation is going to be that it is the members of this Government who are the “Kaffirboeties” and that they (the Opposition) are the great champions of the Whites. Nobody in this House is impressed by her remarks. The United Party does not impress anyone in this House nor does it impress the electorate. She can go on playing a part but it will make no impression.

I want now to deal with agriculture as such. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze) has already largely replied to the remarks of the hon. member for Drakensberg, but there are a few misrepresentations or incorrect facts that one cannot allow to pass by unnoticed. The hon. member for Drakensberg said that while this Government is in power it will just mean that the larger the farmers’ crops are, the sooner they will go bankrupt, because with every large crop that they have there is a larger quantity of maize that has to be exported. The price then falls and those farmers go bankrupt so much sooner. I think that the economy practised by the hon. member for Drakensberg should be dealt with with the contempt that it deserves. I want to ask the hon. member for Jeppes, who is an economist, whether he will not give the hon. member for Drakensberg a few lessons and tell her that the larger the crop, the larger the production per morgen, the lower the price may be but the higher will be the profit.

But there is another matter that she also raised. She said that the Government should fix prices and then she said that when the Government fixed the prices the Minister should ensure that the price was fixed on the basis of production costs plus a minimum wage for the producer. When the hon. the Minister asked her to explain what a minimum wage was, as usual she became highly indignant and told the hon. the Minister how to conduct himself so that she could continue with her speech. But if that is the view of the United Party then we still have the member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) who can explain to us what the policy of the United Party is in regard to this question of the fixing of prices. I am sure that he will not say that the Minister should fix prices because he knows that this does rest with the Minister. I want to ask him whether, if they come into power, the only basis on which his party will fix prices will be on the basis of production costs, irrespective of where those production costs are incurred in producing that product, plus a certain wage, a minimum wage in the words of the hon. member for Drakensberg? Will that be the only consideration?

What was the basis on which you worked before surpluses began to develop?

It is easy for the hon. member to ask that but I want to ask him whether he wants to maintain the same basis when there are surpluses, irrespective of the size of the surplus? When that surplus has to be exported in order to maintain a consistent internal price, how can they export the surplus at a loss because the price on the world market is below the internal price? How else can they finance this than by means of a Government subsidy? The hon. member has the opportunity to explain this to us. Let us take the case of maize of which we have a surplus. This surplus would have been even larger if it had not been for the drought. If we have to export a large surplus this year and the price of the world market is below the internal price, 50c or 60c below the internal price, and that loss has to be covered by the levy fund to which the consumer, the producer and the Government all contribute, and that loss increases, where will he offload that loss? Will it be only on the consumer? If I understand them correctly, the last thing they want is to offload it on to the producer. Oh no; the producer must not be affected. That is the sin of this Government—that the producer is the man who is adversely affected because of the actions of this Government. He is an untouchable. I want to ask the hon. member whether he wants to offload that deficit on to the consumer or on to the Government alone? Perhaps he can give me a reply by way of interjection.

What did the Saps do in the past?

He now has a chance to think about it. But I want to tell him that if there is a surplus and he wants to offload it on to the Government alone, in other words, on to the taxpayers alone, what justification does he have for taxing the producers of other commodities of which we also have a surplus and of selecting one specific commodity and giving preference to that commodity? Hon. members opposite owe us a reply. I wanted to deal with the other points but time will not permit me to do so. It is a pity that they have waited so long to discuss this fourth leg of their amendment. To sum up, I want to tell the United Party that in regard to agricultural matters we have been told by way of a motion of no-confidence, by way of private motions, and we have heard it during this Budget debate—and we will still hear it said repeatedly during this Session—that the farmers are bankrupt. They have tried to intimate further that the farmers have been neglected by this Government and that the Government does not have their interests at heart. But they omit to say what they are prepared to do and the methods that they will follow to solve this problem. I will not deny that there are problems in agriculture. They have one reason and one reason only for acting in this way. In its zeal to become a force to be reckoned with again, and in thinking that it will be able to take over the Government, the Opposition will make use of every means at is disposal, whether it be Poqo or the Orange River scheme or colour policy or taxation or agriculture—it makes no difference; it may also be drought and circumstances which are causing hardship—to see what support it may perhaps be able to obtain from a few people who are in trouble and who are desperate. They could perhaps succeed in this but there is one thing that frustrates them and that is their record. I see that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) shakes his head. He is perhaps a bit young to remember their record but the farming population of South Africa, like the voters, have not forgotten the record of the United Party. They are not impressed by this criticism which does not hold water and by this new attitude which they know is different to the attitude of the United Party in the past. That is why the United Party is steadily deteriorating and becoming more and more despised by the voters, including the farmers. That is why this National Government is going from strength to strength and will become even stronger in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) put a number of questions to me in regard to the position of the maize farmer and how it could be improved. These are the old tactics of those hon. members because they find themselves in difficulty to-day on account of the promises that they have made in the past and have now been left holding the baby. They now have a greater problem on their hands then they had ten or 20 years ago. They have again sought answers from the United Party. [Laughter.] Those are their old tactics. If they do not have the answer to a question they ask the United Party to give them the answer and when we give them the answer it is only a few months afterwards that our advice is given effect to by the Government. This has been the case in regard to the Orange River scheme, immigration scheme and in respect of many agricultural problems that we have had [Interjections.] The United Party’s policy is that we have the Marketing Act and over the years, as the hon. member for Drakensberg said to-day, the farmers have always expected a reasonable entrepreneur’s wage over and above theit production costs. Is it not the policy of the Government then to give the farmer his production costs plus a reasonable entrepreneur’s wage? I think it is their policy to do so but they find themselves in difficulty temporarily in regard to surpluses because of the fact that over the years they have not listened to this side of the House, particularly when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has told them that because of our improved farming methods in South Africa and because our standard of living has not risen sufficiently, we will find ourselves saddled with surpluses. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and this party have told them for years: Do not put a stop to our immigration scheme because in that way you will prevent our having thousands more people in South Africa who can absorb that increasing agricultural production. Only last year at the Transvaal Congress the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made suggestions to them in connection with maize and said: Is it not your intention to discover other ways to dispose of the surplus? What about converting the surplus into animal feed so that we can export an improved quality meat? Scarcely had my leader said this when it appeared in the report of the group which travelled to America in connection with the whole question of maize. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has told us to-day about this tremendous financial scheme of co-ordinating the Land Bank and the Farmers’ Assistance Boards and all those bodies so that agricultural credit can be consolidated for the farmers in a separate department. The hon. member intimated that this was something new but the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing announced it in August last year. The hon. member for Cradock made it out to be a new policy coming from them. Why did he stand up and say this? Because hon. members opposite know how they are criticized by the farming electorate outside. Similarly I can quote from the agricultural policy of the United Party as approved publicly at our Congress in 1957, a policy advocating that the agricultural credit of the farmers be co-ordinated and that a sound body be created so that farming credit can be dealt with in a better fashion. What we advocated in 1957 the Government is only doing in 1963.

Where is the scheme?

I have it here before me. Does the hon. member want me to read it? It states—

Now, however, the hon. the Minister of Finance and hon. members opposite boast about what is being done for the farmers in this Budget. One actually needs a magnifying glass to see what is being done for the farmer in this Budget! The hon. the Minister of Finance is giving the farmer tax relief to the tune of R100,000. [Interjections.] What is the position of the farmers? 28,000 of them have already left their farms over the past few years, and in 1957-8, of the 90,000 remaining, according to the income tax forms which they completed, 17 per cent operated at a loss and 23 per cent operated at a loss in 1960-1. They are now giving the farmer of South Africa a tax concession of R100,000. Mr. Speaker, the position of the farmers has changed to such an extent that they are scarcely able to pay income tax now. That is the position and that is why I will not boast about it. But hon. members opposite tell us how well things are going with the farmers. But what is the position? Is the number of farmers increasing? If things are going so well with us we would find people queueing up to become farmers! But the farmers are leaving the land. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) gave us figures to illustrate the depopulation of the platteland over the past years. But what is more, let us look at the economic position of the farmer. Hon. members tell us: See how the gross income of the farmers has increased over the past few years. That is true; I do not want to deny that the gross income has increased. Last year it was about R800,000,000. But what must we look at? A few years ago this Government appointed a study group to inquire into the financial position of the farmers, a group under Dr. Neethling, and that group found that the farmer in South Africa received only a 2½ per cent dividend on the money he invested in agriculture. Economists will say that if they make an investment in industry, it is not unreasonable to receive 15 per cent on their money. People in commerce also say that they want to make 6 per cent or 7 per cent on their money but the farmer is lucky if he makes 2½ per cent. That is the position. How can one assess the prosperity of the farmer? I do not want to repeat what I have stated previously but I want hon. members to look at the amounts owing to the Land Bank and the Farmers’ Assistance Board, amounts that are increasing annually, and to look at the debts that farmers have with the agricultural co-operatives.

But their assets are increasing.

Yes, the hon. member has a point there. I agree with the hon. member that this is the only thing that has saved the farmers up to the present, and that is because of an inflationary tendency that has given a higher value to his land. But look at his standard of living, look at the house in which he lives, look at his bank account and see whether he has a new car or whether he has the ordinary amenities of life. That is the position of the farmers. The hon. member for Gordonia said that we were generalizing but the mistake he made was to select certain farmers; he mentioned the sultana farmers and the cotton farmers in his constituency. He only singled out those few but what is the position of the farmers at Cradock? The hon. member is a director of a leading co-operative and a year or two ago they told the farmers that they should plough over their lucerne because there was such a large surplus of it. They even advised the farmers in that regard. No, if we want to test the position of the farmer we must take the average. When the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing becomes available they can look at the indices and see how the prices of farming products have fallen and how production costs continue to rise. They will see it again in that Report this year as we have seen it each year. What advice has been given to farmers in this debate? The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) gave us the very important advice that the farmers should go back to farming like their forefathers farmed. They should go back to that time when the farmers packed their wheat into a barn and waited until the next year to sell it. That is precisely the difficulty in which the farmers find themselves to-day. They no longer have barns on their farms; they are now governed by conrtol boards and they have to be satisfied with that. The position is still precisely the same. He said that the Minister is overtaxing himself because he has to work so hard. Yes, I can understand the Ministers overtaxing their strength as a result of their journeys through the Free State to explain the policy of the Government to the farmers. What policy did they explain to those people? The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services told us a few years ago that the trouble with our farmers was actually that we had very few prosperous farmers and the hon. the Minister of Lands said last week when he opened the show at Bloemfontein that that was actually our trouble. But when he was in the Free State he said that the trouble was that the farmers wanted to live too well. That was the position. Hon. members must realize that the farmer to-day is in the position of the businessman whose shelves are full of goods. But nobody wants to buy those goods and he has a surplus. What must he do? There are only two things to do; he has either to go bankrupt or he has to put some other product on his shelves. Our farmers have not quite reached that stage, but they will shortly find themselves in that position if the Government does not give attention to assisting the farmer to dispose of his surplus products. They have now to try to follow a long-term policy.

What goods are on the shelves?

The hon. member knows. Take maize as an example.

26,000,000 bags were exported

We will have the same problem next year and we have the problem with milk and butter too. If there are no surpluses, why are prices lowered? We have fortunately reached this stage, but this is one of the reasons why the price has been lowered— because there are surpluses of those products. The Government must listen to the advice given to it by agricultural leaders—that the economic aspect of agriculture is the most important aspect and we must help the farmers to find new markets. If we cannot bring about a higher standard of living in South Africa the hon. the Minister must try to convert those surpluses into something else that can be exported at a reasonable price. That is what we want from this Government. Earlier on I told the hon. the Minister what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had suggested could be done with maize.

But there is another matter that I want to raise, a matter that should have had the attention of this House during this debate, and that is the report of Mr. Justice Snyman.

What did Senator Conradie say?

What did we find in this House? We had a speech from the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) which was a statesman-like speech. He did not want to drag this matter into politics because he realized how people outside felt about this matter. But what was the attitude of hon. members opposite?

What was the attitude of the United Party in the Senate?

We were immediately told that it was a bluff on the part of the Opposition. The hon. the Prime Minister went so far as to say that he had no hope of the Opposition offering assistance. But what are the facts of the matter? The facts are that the people outside tell the Government when we have trouble in South Africa, as we have had it previously: “Get the support of the Opposition.” Their own people say this to them because the people outside know that to maintain law and order one cannot only depend upon the thousands of people supporting the Nationalist Party; one also has to depend upon the thousands supporting the United Party. The people know this and hon. members know it too.

Do you agree with what Senator Conradie said?

The people know what the position is. What did the Government do? It told the Opposition: We do not need your help. In effect, what they also told the people was: We do not want the assistance of those thousands of supporters of the United Party although they know that in our armed forces, in our Active Citizen Force and in our police force there are thousands of people who are supporters of the United Party. Why did they do that? They did it for one reason—to give the people of South Africa the impression that we are on the side of the undermining elements in South Africa. They want to quote to the people from Hansard, from the speeches that have been made here and to tell the people: There you have it; the United Party is on the side of the undermining elements in this country. This is not the first time this has happened. I remember that in 1959—I have the cutting here with me—we adopted a resolution at the United Party Congress to have a maximum of eight representatives for the Natives in Parliament and we refused to purchase land for Bantustans without knowing what the boundaries would be. Do you know what the immediate reaction of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration was? It was: “U.P. Resolutions a great triumph for the A.N.C. in South Africa; the word of honour of the White man has been broken.” And now on this occasion, during the debate that we have had here, they have told us: We do not want your assistance. They say this so that they can tell the people outside that we do not want to give them our assistance. Although the safety of South Africa is our first priority the Nationalist Party is playing at politics and playing fast and loose with South Africa’s safety. While we fully realize that the people of South Africa want unity in regard to this matter the Nationalist Party is playing to the gallery, not only for the sake of the audience but also for the sake of the Press.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Orders Nos. 103 (1) and 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned.