This is the first of a series of clauses in this Bill which vests very great powers in the hon. the Minister. In some of the clauses there are also certain powers provided for which are vested in officials. We know that this is an agreed measure. It is based on the experience of almost 100 years and it replaces measures which go back for almost a century. As the years have passed I think experience has shown that it is better to place these very great powers in the hands of the Minister concerned rather than in the hands of boards and other bodies, except in certain special circumstances where technical questions are involved and where these powers are left in the hands of officials. We do not contest that it is necessary in this Bill to vest these very great powers in the hands of the Minister, because if we had a law which was hide-bound it would simply mean that it would constantly be necessary to come back to Parliament in order to be able to get on with the job of developing the mineral resources of this country. We concede all that, but I think the hon. the Minister will agree that the powers which are provided for here are very far-reaching indeed. The amounts which may be involved in the exercise of these powers may be very considerable. These powers affect the rights of individuals in certain cases and they cover the widest possible field. We feel that this House, which in the last resort is the final authority in the country, should at least have an opportunity of intervening, if necessary. Many of these powers are powers which will be exercised without any publicity. I propose at a later stage to move an amendment which will provide for an annual report to be submitted by the Minister in respect of the exercise of these powers. If that is done, then there will be publicity, and there will be a ready opportunity for these matters to be raised in this House by any member who wishes to raise them. We do not propose to take up the time of the House by dealing with this question in each of the clauses in which it crops up. I am raising the matter under this clause therefore, the first clause in which these powers are granted, and when we come to the last of the clauses in which these powers are vested in the Minister, we will propose the insertion of a new clause which will provide a general umbrella cover. I can only express the hope that, when that time comes, we will have the support of the hon. the Minister for our amendment.

As the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) has correctly indicated, this is a principle which is embodied in a large number of clauses. I think it may perhaps be better for us to discuss this principle when we deal with the amendment of the hon. member to the last clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

In the Afrikaans version, in line 28, page 12, after “vir" to insert “prospekteer—of”.

This merely rectifies a printing error.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 126,

I beg to move the amendment as printed in my name—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 126:

The hon. the Minister will notice that I have not sought to introduce a complicated provision or one which will give rise to technical difficulties. This is a very simple amendment which requires the Minister to lay on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament a report of the decisions taken by him under the powers which this Bill will give to him. Sir, I do not think it is necessary to debate this amendment at length. It is perfectly clear that very, very important matters are in the discretion of the Minister; there is no check whatsoever. We have conceded that it is necessary that the Minister should have these powers, but I think it is in the public interest and in the interest of this country that publicity should be given to the decisions taken, and in the simple form in which I have put the amendment I cannot see that there can be any objection to the inclusion of this new clause. I sincerely hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept it.

In terms of this Bill there are 45 matters in connection with which the Minister has the power to make decisions and in all of those cases he has to use his own discretion. These matters vary from important questions such as prospecting and digging agreements in terms of Clause 20 and mining leases under Clause 52 to less important decisions such as the approval of diggers’ certificates or the issuing of prospecting permits to companies or other corporate bodies. Literally hundreds or perhaps even thousands of these various things have to be done by the Minister annually. These matters include the issuing of diggers’ certificates or the issuing of a residential and work certificate. These certificates are sometimes refused either because of the fact that the applicant has in the past been found guilty of an offence under the Diamond Act or because strong suspicion exists against such a person, or sometimes because of the fact that he does not need a certificate of this nature.

Hon. members will realize that it would be an impossible task to table a report containing the reasons why certificates had been refused to certain persons or companies. I do not think it is desirable to table a report of this nature because action is taken on police reports which are confidential. The Minister only takes action on certain grounds. He cannot summarily grant a prospecting right to anyone. The owner of private land has the right to the precious stones that might be found on that land and he nominates the person to whom he wants to give digging rights if that person has a certificate. The Bill also provides what has to be done if precious stones are discovered. In terms of this Bill, 50 claims have to be granted to the discoverer and the owner; there is no discretion in this regard. Mining leases are also granted to those persons in the normal course of events. I do not know of cases in which these have been granted to any other persons. They are the persons who are entitled to them. As far as State land is concerned they can of course peg freely, except in Namaqualand; this was later extended so as to include the Cape west coast area as well. The rest of the State land is available for those purposes. But the hon. member himself will know that as far as State land is concerned, although it is in the discretion of the Minister to make allocations, the Minister cannot make the allocations himself; provision is now made in the Bill—and this is simply a repetition of the existing provision—that the matter must be referred to the Diamond Advisory Committee. That committee is sitting at the moment and must make recommendations to the Minister. I mention this for the information of the hon. member because it is clear that the discretion of the Minister to grant mining leases is extremely limited. The same right exists in respect of gold, base minerals and oil. If all these documents have to be tabled they will eventually run into thousands. This Bill only deals with precious stones but the same principle is contained in the Base Minerals Act and the Natural Oil Act. If this principle is accepted here, therefore, it is logical to expect it to be extended to the other Acts as well. Hon. members are at all times at liberty to obtain information regarding prospecting leases and so forth which are granted but there has never been a request for this information in the past because the same principle has held good over the years in regard to the granting of mining leases. I think therefore that it is really not necessary to insert a clause such as that proposed by the hon. member. As far as the terms of mining leases are concerned I can say that all the terms laid down for mining leases or prospecting leases or prospecting and digging agreements, both in the case of precious stones and base minerals, are referred to the committee appointed in terms of the Gold Act. That committee lays down the terms of the leases, not the Minister. That committee consists of the Government Mining Engineer, the Commissioner for Inland Revenue, the Registrar of Mining Titles and two other persons. It is a committee of five members; it is a technical committee which inquires into mining leases and makes recommendations. The Minister himself makes no decision in this connection until such time as this technical committee has considered the matter. In the light of these facts, therefore, I hope that the hon. member will not insist upon his amendment. I want to give him the assurance that if hon. members want details in connection with any particular group of allocations, that information will always be made available to them.

I appreciate the hon. the Deputy Ministers statement that we can always ask for this information. What we are seeking to achieve is that there should be publicity in respect of these matters. I am not concerned with the particulars of every case where a digger certificate is granted. Obviously all that would be necessary in those cases would be to indicate in general the number of certificates granted and the number refused. That is not the sort of thing which I have in mind in moving this amendment. We know that there are committees which have to investigate these matters; we know that the Department goes into these matters and advises the Minister, and we are not suggesting that there would be arbitrary action. But, Sir, one cannot get away from the fact that very considerable powers are vested in the Minister under this Bill. We know that there have been occasions when it has been necessary in the interest of the economy of this country to refuse to grant further certificates or to enter into further mining leases, but I am quite convinced by what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. I believe that it is right that a report on these matters should be Tabled in both Houses of Parliament. I can see no difficulty in the preparation of such a report, and I think that only good could result from it if the Minister agreed to accept this amendment. If such a report were laid on the Table and there was no objection to it, that in itself would indicate approval of the Minister’s administration of the Department. Sir, there is no point in arguing this matter at great length; what is important is the principle that is involved here, and I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept the principle involved here. If he wishes to recast the amendment to meet the difficulty mentioned by him, we would readily agree to it. It seems to us that a simple clause of this sort could only do good. We believe that it would lead to sound administration and I hoped that the hon. the Deputy Minister would be prepared to accept the insertion of this new clause in spite of what he said here this morning.

Proposed new Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—41: Basson. J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopwell.

Noes—65: Bekker. H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. L; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Dönges, T. E.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hiemstra, E. C. A., Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van derSpuy, J. P.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Proposed new Clause accordingly negatived.

Remaining Clause, Schedule and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Amendment in Clause 5 (Afrikaans) put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

This clause provides for the discharge of the Group Areas Development Board in respect of an amount of R 1,649,847. Will the Minister give us the reason for the write-off of this amount?

The position is that there were two different bodies in the past—the Group Areas Development Board and the Group Areas Board. The administrative expenses of the Group Areas Board were voted while the administrative expenses of the Group Areas Development Board were met from loan funds. In 1962 these two bodies were incorporated in the Department of Community Development. All these administrative expenses are now of course voted. This amount represents the administrative expenditure incurred prior to 1962. It will, after all, have to be written off at some stage or other and because the interest will merely mount up, it may as well be written off now. These are the ordinary administrative expenses incurred on Loan Account in terms of the Group Areas Development Act. Now that that particular set-up has disappeared, we are following the normal procedure in that an amount will be voted under the Vote of my colleague each year.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

This clause provides that guarantees may be furnished in respect of certain hotels. I want to ask—I do not know whether I must ask the hon. the Minister of Finance who is introducing this measure or the Minister of Tourism—what the requirements are which are referred to in this Bill. As the clause is worded now—and I hope that is the intention— it gives the Minister of Tourism the power to give financial guarantees in respect of a wide range of hotels. When the Minister announced that he would give assistance to three prestige hotels he specially stated at the time that that assistance was in regard to prestige hotels, but the Bill does not say that. I should like to know—and I hope that it is the position— whether similar assistance will later be offered to other hotels even though it is only in respect of prestige hotels at this stage. All tourists are not rich. We hope to bring many hundreds of thousands of people to South Africa and they are not all going to be millionaires. They are not all going to be able to afford to pay the prices these prestige hotels will charge. We must therefore provide lower-priced accommodation but of a decent standard and those hotels will require some sort of financial assistance. I hope that the wide terms of this clause, terms which provide for assistance to any hotel meeting the requirements of the Minister of Tourism, will not only apply to prestige hotels but to other hotels as well. Not only is this a wide clause but I hope it will be widely applied to the benefit of the hotel industry as a whole.

I want to point out to the hon. member that the clause is basically general in its terms. The reason for that this is the legal terminology which I as the Minister require at this stage. In regard to his question whether this would only apply to prestige hotels and not to other hotels, I want to tell him that this is entirely intended as a measure to enable the Government to carry out its undertaking in respect of prestige hotels in Johannesburg. Basically the hotel industry is in the hands of the private sector. The Government decided to afford some financial assistance, in certain circumstances, to international prestige hotels in Johannesburg. The intention is not to apply it generally. The hon. member will notice in the Bill that there are conditions which I as Minister can lay down. These here are that they should comply with the standard of international prestige hotels. In certain other countries in the world they may assist international hotels but it does not apply to the hotel industry as a whole. In some countries they don’t even assist international prestige hotels. But this Government decided to assist international hotels to raise certain finance. I also lay down the condition that they should be at an international terminal like Johannesburg The member will notice that the clause provides that—

The Minister deemed it expedient in Johannesburg because of the fact that the Carlton Hotel had closed down and that there was very little accommodation of the type necessary for an international centre like Johannesburg.

In consultation with the Minister of Finance.

Yes, in consultation with the Minister of Finance. May I also add that the Minister of Finance laid down certain conditions with which we agreed. Conditions under which finance could be guaranteed provided the local authority was also prepared to accept its share of the responsibility. So where I lay down certain conditions other conditions are laid down in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

Don’t they trust you with too much power?

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) will appreciate that when it comes to the question of finance in any legislation it is always done in consultation with the Minister of Finance. I am quite happy to accept the over-riding decision of the Minister of Finance.

The hon. member will also see that reference is made to 1 January 1964. It is retrospective to that date; it is not retrospective further back than that date. The rest of the Bill does leave certain decisions to the Minister of Tourism and others to the Minister in Consultation with the Minister of Finance. It also refers to erection and alteration and it is in that respect that this clause will operate.

Of course this clause says nothing about prestige hotels. We who represent constituencies in Johannesburg welcome this step because if there is any city which needs first-class hotel accommodation of a prestige character it is certainly the city of Johannesburg. I think the Minister will agree with me that the class of hotel which is contemplated to be assisted is not generally the class of hotel which is occupied by all classes of tourists. The bulk of the tourists who come to our country do not occupy accommodation of this class. The people who will occupy this high class of accommodation will be those who operate executive accounts, as they are known, or company accounts. That is, they do not pay themselves but the organizations on whose behalf they have come here pay their accounts. Very few tourists occupy these right-rates prestige hotels.

The clause does not only provide for assistance in the erection of the hotel from 1 January 1964, but it also provides that this type of assistance can be given in respect of the alteration of an hotel establishment from 1 January 1964. That is why the requirements of the Minister are so pertinent to the issue. Before proprietors of existing hotel premises alter their premises to meet the requirements of the Minister they would like clarity in regard to the conditions with which they have to comply before they make application. The Minister has given us no clarity in that respect. The explanatory memorandum gives us only a glimpse at that aspect of the commission’s work which the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs has appointed to go into the whole question of the hotel industry and its rating. If it is the Minister’s intention to lay down conditions on which existing establishments can approach him for financial assistance in order to effect alterations to their premises so that they come up to the required standard for tourists. I think the Minister must be a little more specific. If he is unable to state now what those requirements are and if he is waiting on the Hotel Commission’s report I think he should say so quite clearly so that there can be a clearer understanding of the position as far as the hotel industry is concerned. I ask the Minister whether he can give us clarification.

It was considered expedient for certain international hotels to be erected in Johannesburg. The expediency was in relation to a particular place and a particular type of hotel. Those were the conditions which were accepted. I have made the point quite clear. There has been no statement by the Government that this will apply to all classes of hotels.

The clause says so.

I said the I clause was general and that was why I described the details and the implications of it. The mere fact that the clause is general is a legal necessity. As far as the Government and the Minister of Finance are concerned and the Minister of Tourism this applies to a restricted type of hotel. That is the condition that has been laid down at this stage. The hon. member says these high-class hotels are only occupied by tourists with a great deal of money and by people who run executive accounts. That may be so but I nevertheless consider it necessary that those kind of hotels should be established in Johannesburg. When it comes to the general run of hotels for tourists this clause does not apply; it only applies to the type of hotel I have mentioned.

As far as the Hotel Commission’s report is concerned I have not got that report. I see its terms of reference are: (a) Whether the hotel industry serves its purpose and providing in the needs of tourism and, if not, what are the shortcomings of the industry; (b) what are the factors impeding the healthy development of the industry; and (c) what measures are necessary and justified to enable the hotel industry to serve its purpose. Those are matters the Hotel Commission is inquiring into. But the Government did not wait for the Hotel Commission’s report to act as far as these prestige hotels were concerned. This is the power which is required to enable the Government to carry out the assurance it has given to the international prestige hotels. No assurances have been given in respect of any other type of hotel whatsoever.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I would ask the hon. the Minister to explain the circumstances which gave rise to this power being taken. I am well aware that there is an explantion in the White Paper that the intention is to give regulations the force of law whereas ever since Union they have always worked very well as a non-statutory administrative type of direction. I ask this question because it seems to me that powers are going to be taken, as the White Paper says, to empower the Board to impose penalties. Normally that is a contractual matter. Seeing that the Tender Board is only going to deal with contractual matters, will it now have power to impose penalties or to predetermine damages over and above any contractual undertakings to which a tenderer might have committed himself?

The reason for this clause is very fully set out in the explanatory memorandum. The Chairman of the Tender Board has met with this difficulty that there are certain irregularities; people furnish wrong information on the basis of which they are given the ordinary preferential right in terms of the regulations. If they give the wrong information the position is that nothing can be done about it. If their tender was the lowest tender, even on the correct information, nothing can be done about it. In sub-section (2) we now give these regulations the force of law. The Tender Board can now impose a penalty in all cases. Penalties are already imposed in cases where tenderers have profited by their iniquity but penalties will also now be imposed in even those cases where there is no direct profit to ensure that we get the utmost good faith at all times in a matter in which really the State iself is vulnerable. I move this at the request of the Chairman of the Tender Board.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

As was pointed out during the second-reading debate, this provision introduces a new principle into public finance. The powers under the Loan Act have thus far been used entirely for fiscal purposes. Once this provision goes through, the Act extends authority to the Government to use the provisions of the Act as a means of controlling the monetary market or “for the proper regulation of internal monetary conditions”, as the clause puts it. As the hon. the Minister himself pointed out during the second-reading debate, this additional power is being taken over and above the excess borrowing powers already vested in the Government for fiscal purposes. Those excess borrowing powers which for many years stood at R6,000,000 were first increased to R30,000,000 and last year they were increased to R60,000,000. All that is subject to a form of control both by the Controller and Auditor-General and by Parliament itself. But these additional powers, as far as I can determine, are not going to be kept within the maximum limit to which the Controller and Auditor-General is obliged to give a certificate from time to time. Notwithstanding the fact that the State is now taking power to invest abroad—something which is denied the South African citizen—there is no opposition in principle on the part of this side of the House to the extension of the Government’s borrowing powers for the purposes set out in this clause. Since normal methods of keeping Parliament informed are not likely to operate, it does seem that some additional provision should be made for Parliament to be informed as to how these powers are being used. I have handed to the Minister a proposed amendment to add another sub-section which provides that information should be tabled in this House at regular intervals so as to keep Parliament informed. In a very brief discussion I was able to have with the Minister, he indicated that he was not unfavourably disposed to some provision of this kind. What is really needed, Sir, is that Parliament should be kept informed as to what happened during the preceding year. I am not so sure that it should be tied to a financial year so long as information is tabled covering a period of 12 months. I think it would be preferable if it covered the period till the end of December. In that case the information will be available early in the session and before the financial proposals come before the House. That is the type of information that is needed. I do not propose moving the amendment I have handed to the Minister; I prefer him to deal with the matter as he sees fit at this stage, and I shall then decide whether or not to move my amendment.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) gave me a copy of his amendment just before proceedings commenced this morning. I have not had much time to consider it, but I am quite prepared to give effect in the Bill itself to the undertaking I gave him yesterday in the course of the second-reading debate, that I would lay before Parliament once a year the information in relation to all borrowings under Clause 18. I think the hon. member’s amendment is rather unnecessary in certain respects and falls short in other respects. It is unnecessary in the sense that he wants monthly returns, but there are monthly returns of all exchequer receipts and issues. That is purely an administrative measure, and I am prepared in those particular returns to show as a separate item any borrowings in terms of Clause 18. I think that will meet most of the requirements of the hon. member in regard to a monthly statement. As far as the annual statement is concerned, I move—

I think that meets the requirements of the hon. member, and I therefore move accordingly.

I appreciate the hon. Minister’s approach to the matter. I will not move an amendment as the amendment that the hon. Minister has moved meets the point that has been made from this side and is acceptable.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Amendment in Clause 18 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As I foreshadowed last year in the course of the debate on my Vote, a Select Committee was appointed at the beginning of this Session to investigate the proposals relating to the contemplated changes in our coinage. The Select Committee has now submitted a report in which the unanimous conclusions arrived at by the Committee are set out.

The Select Committee is convinced that these changes in our coinage are necessary and essential at this stage, and in the main the effect of its recommendations is that our coins will be smaller, lighter and more durable. The weight of the whole series will be more than twice as light as that of our present currency, and the most important single factor is that the “white" coins will now be made of nickel instead of silver. Our silver coins, of course, are made of 500 standard silver. Next to silver nickel is the most attractive and most serviceable bullion, and it is used a great deal in various parts of the world. Our future coins, made of silver, will be able to remain in circulation for a very long period without becoming unsightly, as happens only too frequently in the case of our present coins.

The second important idea is to convert the 50c-piece, which is 39 m.m. in diameter and which weighs more than 28 grammes, into a much smaller practical coin. In its new form the 50c-piece will be only 28 m.m. in diameter and its weight will be about one-third of the weight of the old coin, and it is hoped that this will result in its being circulated more freely, which in turn may possibly have a salutary effect on the change pattern as we know it.

The Select Committee further recommended that the tickey should not be withdrawn from circulation, and in terms of a further recommendation of the committee a new 2c piece will be brought into circulation with a view to testing its popularity and serviceability. It was also recommended that a silver R1 piece be minted but naturally of a higher standard than the present one—I think it is to be 800 standard silver—a R1 piece which will not become as unsightly as our present silver coins; which will possibly prove very popular with many members of the public and which will possibly relieve the pressure on the circulation of R1 notes.

Amongst other things the committee also recommended the issue of two new gold pieces, that is to say, a R5 piece and one which contains precisely one ounce troy-weight of gold.

So much with regard to the recommendations of the committee with regard to these matters. The Government is prepared to accept all these recommendations subject to one proviso. The Government has not had an opportunity of properly considering the practical effect of the recommendations in respect of the R5 gold coin and the so-called Trojan. The Government has certain misgivings with regard to these two items but is nevertheless prepared to include both these coins in the series subject to the understanding that if it considers it to be necessary it will introduce an amendment next session to withdraw them from the new series. In view of the fact that the relevant coins would not have been minted in the near future in any event, this proviso will not really cause any dislocation therefore.

The entire series of coins will therefore consist of the following denominations: R1, 50c, 20c. 10c, 5c, 2½c, 2c, lc and ½c.

The proposed switch-over has been devised in such a way that it will cause the minimum of confusion with the present series of coins as well as the least possible disruption of commercial transactions. It is felt that it will be possible to make a start with the switch-over in about nine months and that it should be possible to complete the whole process within about two or three years. An Advisory Council will be appointed in the near future to deal with all aspects of the contemplated switchover.

As far as the designs on the proposed series of coins are concerned, this change offers an ideal opportunity for the introduction of really attractive coins with a South African character. The Government will come to a decision in this regard in due course.

The Bill, which defines the activities of the Mint, and which is now before the House, is a new one but in actual fact it merely consolidates the existing laws and brings about necessary amendments which have been recommended by the Select Committee. For procedural reasons, however, it is being presented to the House in the form of a new Bill. Clauses 11. 12 (2), 16 and 25 relate to the change in our coinage. Provision is also being made for the abolition of the Coinage Fund which the Select Committee on Public Accounts recommended a few years ago (Clause 8) and for steps to be taken against persons who fraudulently use slugs in slot-machines (Clause 19). For the rest the Bill is purely a consolidating measure.

I think it is clear that our new coins have been designed with an eye on the future. They will be lighter, smaller and more attractive than the present series. In this respect they take into account the experience gained in other countries as well as world tendencies. The series is perhaps a little overloaded but it looks as though the Select Committee is of the opinion that at least one of the series will disappear eventually. I think we will have cause to be proud of our new coins. I therefore move the second reading with confidence.

In so far as this Bill embodies the unanimous findings of the Select Committee, it can be considered as being an agreed measure, and enjoying the support of all sections of the House. The handy little note which embodies the views of the Select Committee and all the evidence that was heard only came into the hands of members yesterday, and therefore one has to assume that hon. members on both sides of the House have implicit confidence in their colleagues that they put on the Select Committee and are prepared to accept their findings, which are embodied in this Bill. If that is so, this Bill will have a quick and smooth passage, as certainly it will from this side of the House.

The Select Committee, as you will see, Mr. Speaker, heard a great deal of evidence from all sections of the people. It heard a great number of different views and different viewpoints, that is to say, from different aspects. For instance, I personally found it a most interesting committee to sit on for that very reason that aspects were put before the Committee which perhaps most people had not considered before in thinking about this question of our coins. For instance, one thing to which the committee had to give very serious consideration was the position of blind people, and the difficulties experienced by people who have to handle large number of coins in very bad light. Take, for instance, bus conductors. In considering the form which our new coinage should take, one has to take into consideration the large class of people who are blind and the large class of people who have to handle coins in bad light, so as to try and ensure that the sizes were reasonably easily distinguishable and that not only in size but in texture they could not easily be confused. If you multiply that particular aspect by a good many times, you will see that the Select Committee really did have a good many interests to reconcile, and that is perhaps why, as the Minister said, the list of coins proposed in the new Bill is slightly longer than might have been expected.

I think that this Bill embodies modern practice as it is found all over the world, both in regard to the texture and the size and the weight and the cleanliness of the coinage, and I think, as the hon. Minister has said, that sufficient tolerance is provided in the Bill for the public needs to show themselves in practice. There were very many opinions expressed before the Select Committee as to what was likely to happen in future. Some people said one thing would happen, some people said another thing would happen. Some people said that one coin would disappear, some people said that another coin was essential. They were all matters of opinion upon which no one can pronounce a definite judgment. That is why the Select Committee found it advisable to say, Well, let us have a system of coins where practical experience can tell us just what is the public need, what is the demand and what serves the public requirements, which is the main function of coinage. I think that that is a wise and a sensible way to look at the problems. The hon. Minister has pointed out that provision is made for the change-over, which of course from the public point of view is a very important aspect indeed because inevitably some of the new coins will be rather like some of the older coins in size and could easily be confused. Therefore the change-over will have to be done systematically, and it will be under the control of a committee on which the commercial banks and the Reserve Bank will largely be represented, because they are the people who will have to put the thing into force from the practical point of view, and I am quite certain they will do it systematically. Provided the change-over is not rushed, I am of the opinion, Sir, that the change-over will be made with little or no public inconvenience, and I believe that we will have a set of coins which is an improvement on the present coins which are clean, which are light and easily handled, and once the people get used to them, which they will do without difficulty if the change-over is done systematically, will be accepted by everybody. We support the Bill.

I also want to say a few words about this Bill. Let me say immediately that it was a privilege and a pleasure for me to be chairman of this Select Committee. We obtained a great deal of very useful information and there was wonderful co-operation on the part of all members who were determined to co-operate with one another as much as possible. If we had not had this determination to co-operate, I doubt whether we would ever have been able to bring up a unanimous report in connection with this matter. My thanks to the hon. members of the Select Committee for the manner in which this matter was dealt with.

When we look at the evidence which we now have before us in book form, we see that a number of memoranda in connection with which we did not call for supporting evidence were submitted to the Committee. In these cases the memoranda made the intentions of these persons very clear to us and every word of evidence placed before us was considered before our eventual decision was arrived at I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) in connection more specifically with the people who have to identify our coins by the sense of touch. In this regard, the task of the Committee was actually different to that of the Department. The Department went more by what they considered would be an ideal coinage system but we also had to consider the happenings in every-day life and the views of practical people in regard to the matter. In this regard we had before us every possible opinion on this matter and we gave our attention to these views. We found that there were certain shortcomings in the proposals which were originally made, for example, the differences between various coins and the possibility that people could become confused as far as the coins were concerned. There was also the question of the value of these coins, the value that each coin should have. These were all factors which were put forward in the evidence submitted. The evidence contained in this report is very interesting and persons who like interesting and at the same time informative reading, will find this report almost more absorbing than a thriller with four murders on page 1.

I also want to mention, as did the hon. member for Constantia, the problem of blind people, as well as the problem in regard to other people who have to handle money quickly and people who have to handle money in a poor light. This is a very important factor and it was for these reasons that the Committee deemed fit to have no two coins of the old series or of the new series more or less the same size. Although they are similar to one another, they are so different in use that people will have become completely used to the new coin before the old coin of more or less the same size is withdrawn. No real confusion can arise in this regard. The difficulty is, of course, that a person will now be able to read that the diameter of a coin will be a certain figure, although he will not see the coin himself. When one compares the patterns and the feel of the various coins with one another—those which have smooth edges and those which have milled edges—one realizes that the whole matter has been co-ordinated in order to eliminate confusion. We considered this to be one of our most important tasks.

I want to conclude but I feel that I cannot do so without referring back to the Decimalization Commission which was appointed in 1958 and of which I also had the privilege to be a member. There are certain ideas in circulation which I feel should be placed on record, ideas in connection with the activities of that Commission which have never been placed on record in this House in the proper way. The first point that I want to mention without becoming involved in any argument is that the Decimalization Commission found that the lc piece was a too large unit of currency for the price shades in the country and that accordingly there had to be fractions of cents. Since 1958 the cost of living has risen by 8 per cent. This does not make a very great impression upon the question of coins, nor does it double the value of the smaller unit of currency. It took two world wars and the Anglo-Boer War and 100 years and more of inflation to remove the farthing from the market, so nobody can say that the ½c will disappear from circulation within the foreseeable future. But this is something which the future will have to show. I just want to make it very clear that the Decimalization Commission felt that one could not have a decimal system without fractions, having in mind our price shades. The second thing in connection with which there appeared from the evidence submitted to us to be some misunderstanding was in regard to the 2s. piece and the half-crown of the old coinage series. There were many members of the Decimalization Commission who felt that we should retain the half-crown. It was eventually decided to retain the 2s. piece. The reason for this is my difficulty. The reason was not that the 2s. piece fitted in well with a decimal system. We accepted the position at the time that one had halves and quarters and so forth in a decimal system. As soon as one divides, one has fractions, and as soon as one multiplies, it works out to ten. That is more or less how the public works with money in everyday life. The reason why the 2s. piece was chosen as a unit and not the half-crown was because of a specific request from the Department of Native Affairs at the time—this is now the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. They based their request on these grounds: They said: The two most important coins as far as the Bantu are concerned, are the tickey and the shilling. The Bantu know that there are four tickeys in a shilling and that there are two shillings in a 2s. piece, but they do not like the sixpence and the half-crown. For this reason they always prefer to take the 2s. piece as a unit of currency instead of the half-crown. They do not like the half-crown. I mention this merely to indicate why it was decided at the time to have a 20c piece and not a 25c piece. There is some confusion in connection with this matter to-day. It is argued that this was done because the 2s. piece fits better into the decimal series better than the half-crown does. I just want to emphasize the fact that this fact had nothing to do with the case.

In conclusion I want to say that I am pleased that the Government has accepted the report of the Select Committee. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are not wedded to the question of the R5 gold piece. But I think that the committee was quite unanimous as far as the desirability of having the Trojan was concerned. One may give it another name, but it is certainly a wonderful thing to have. We had in mind a coin which complies more or less with what is proposed here. It is really a coin which, apart from its market value, everyone will be proud to own and to be able to say it is something which we make in South Africa. I also want to say the same of the proposed R1 piece. When one compares this attractive coin, which is 80 per cent silver, with the dirty ten-shilling notes that we have to carry around with us, one wonders whether anyone will still want to carry a ten-shilling note about with him once that coin is available. I hope that that coin will come into circulation soon and that it will enjoy the popularity which I think everyone will be convinced it will enjoy after they have seen it. I think that these two coins of which South Africa will be proud. Numismatists will also be proud to have these coins in their collection.

Like the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), I was also a member of the Decimal Coinage Commission, but he that puts his hand to the plough should not look back. I think we should look forward. To-day we have reached a new stage in our progress towards finality, but finality is always something which is a long way off. It is better to journey hopefully than to arrive; and we on this Select Committee did journey hopefully. We journeyed and felt that we could reach unanimity on the next stage towards a perfect coinage system. I hope some day it will be perfect.

Whenever one discusses coins and decimalization, one appreciates the truth of the old Latin tag, quat homines tot sententiae—so many men, so many minds. However many men you have on a Select Committee, that number of opinions you will have. I think the achievement of the Select Committee was a great achievement, to achieve unanimity, even though it did not please every individual entirely. In the light of our experience, I think we have made great progress. If we compare our experience with that of Australia, New Zealand and Britain, countries which have embarked on a similar enterprise, we see that we have made much greater progress. I sincerely hope that when this report is in its final form—and by the way, I should like to congratulate the members of the staff for getting it into this form so quickly; I think it is a splendid piece of work—I should like certain people in Australia and New Zealand to receive copies, because they are concerned with similar problems. They have not yet been able to achieve unanimity about the names of their major coins. It is a very difficult problem and, because of that, I think the chairman of the Select Committee deserves great praise for having persuaded his Committee to come to a unanimous decision. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

All that remains for me to do now is to express my gratitude in the first place to hon. members who have given this Bill such a good reception and, secondly, to the Select Committee which devoted many hours of work to this subject and really made a great effort to reach as much agreement in this regard as possible. My hearty thanks to them. I think that they realized that we had to put our coinage system in order for the next 50 or 100 years. They showed sufficient imagination not to shrink from the task imposed upon them. In the third place I also want to direct a word of thanks to my Department, particularly to the Director of the Mint, who has been particularly zealous in making himself acquainted with the position. He and the Fact-finding Committee which I appointed during the recess contributed largely towards increasing our knowledge of the subject in general, and we are very grateful to him for having acquired that knowledge, and for having made a special study to these problems.

I am very pleased that things have gone so well, because there is need for haste as far as this Bill is concerned. In the first place, hon. members know that the price of silver continues to rise, and it will eventually be completely uneconomic, even at the 500 standard, to mint coins of the present size. In the second place, the owners of slot machines have stopped importing these machines until such time as there is certainty in regard to the coinage system, and they have started worrying us in this regard. I am very pleased that we have been able to dispose of the matter this Session. In the third place, if we had to leave this matter standing over until next year, it would simply have meant that the change-over would have been delayed for a year. We wanted the change-over to take place as soon as possible. I am very pleased that things have gone so smoothly. I also want to agree with the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) that this is in effect the second instalment of our Decimalization Act of a few years ago. This is the rounding off of that Act. Now we have a new system and we will also have new coins. I think, too, that the designs on the coins will also be completely new.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In this Bill we are asked to approve of the use by the Government for the administration of the country’s three accounts amounting to almost R1,400,000,000; and I believe that entitles the Opposition finally to state its misgivings about the policy of the Minister and of the Government as reflected in the financial measures introduced by the Minister. To make the attitude of the Opposition clear, I think I should start by moving the following amendment—

We believe, and we know, that that amendment reflects the opinion of growing numbers of people in South Africa. It is, of course, an accurate assessment of the opinion of the official Opposition, but it also reflects in growing measure the temper of the people of South Africa. We know that members opposite like to pretend that things politically are going remarkably well with the Government. They even, for instance, speak of a breakthrough to the people of Natal, a claim they could not substantiate at the Ixopo by-election, and a claim which at best can be founded only on the disillusionment of some of the new immigrants who come to South Africa from other African territories, and who come here embittered by their experience of governments in Europe and in Africa, and who therefore, one can understand, think that the Nationalist Party may offer some better prospects for them; but our experience is that they do not stay here long before they appreciate the differences between the situation in South Africa and elsewhere in Africa, and it does not take long before certainly they come to appreciate the incompetence and inadequacy of this Government in South Africa. But what is more interesting, and this can be substantiated by the experience of every member of this House, is that there are signs of disillusionment among Government members. If we look at the debates of the last month or two, it is surprising that those members who in the past made a contribution—I am talking about ordinary members and not members of the Cabinet—to the discussions in this House which was constructive, and who could bring reasoned arguments to bear in support of the policies of the Government, have been singularly silent. The Government has apparently had to rely on the support of hon. members like the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), distinguished members of this House, who are better known for bluster than for argument. When the Government comes to the stage where it has to rely for support in this House on bluster rather than argument, then indeed it is clearly evidence of a decline of enthusiasm in its own ranks for the policy and the administration of the Government.

The amendment we have moved is based on the general administration of South Africa by this Government. It applies in some measure, to a smaller or to a greater extent, to the manner in which every member of the Cabinet conducts his business. We have no sympathy for the fact that their policies and administrations are leading South Africa into a state of disillusion with them as a Government. We have some small measure of sympathy only with the hon. the Minister of Finance. It is his duty to reflect in the financial affairs of the country the consequences of Government policy as a whole. Therefore he has to come to this House and accept responsibility and to face the consequences of the policy of all the members of the Government. Any man who finds himself in that unhappy position deserves a measure of sympathy, even from the Opposition.

We see some of the difficulties the hon. the Minister finds himself in in the fact that he sits to-day with a surplus of R 128,000,000. The interesting thing about that is that that surplus was announced in his Budget speech as being R80,000,000. That in itself was a gross miscalculation; yet, within a fortnight, the Minister had to come back to us and admit that he had made a further mistake of 50 per cent. He was out by R40,000,000, in a fortnight. The most striking of it all is that, owing to the policies of the Government and its incompetence, the Minister, with a windfall like that, with a blessing from Providence like that, R128,000,000, cannot give necessary relief to the taxpayers and to the middle and lower income groups. To understand the enormity of this omission and of this unfair extraction from the pockets of the people of South Africa, I would remind you, Sir, of two facts.

The one is that this surplus, which the Minister cannot use to give the people relief, is 50 per cent more than the total sum of money asked for on Revenue Account by Mr. Havenga in 1938, the last Budget before the war, which was about £40,000,000. The same Mr. Havenga came to this House in August 1948, just after the present Government came into power, and announced it as his intention and his policy that he would strive to introduce a Budget of less than £100,000,000. The surplus now is 50 per cent more than Mr. Havenga hoped to make the total Budget then. I am not criticizing that, but what I am criticizing is that where this enormous surplus is available there is nothing in it for the man who pays the taxes. This Minister of Finance used to support statements made by Mr. Havenga and Mr. Hofmeyr on what a Minister of Finance is entitled to demand from the taxpayer. Both those hon. gentlemen used to state again and again that a government is entitled to take from the taxpayers in any one year more money than it needs for the administration of the country, and the Minister of Finance supported that. But look at the position to-day. He is taking from the taxpayers R 128,000,000 more than he needs for the administration of South Africa, and he cannot give a penny back to the taxpayers. For that he has an excuse, which is that it is his duty to combat inflation. Without further analysis it sounds good. Possibly it is the duty of a Minister of Finance to combat inflation, but what is inflation? I am not a great expert, but from my reading I learnt that inflation simply means that you have a situation where too much money is chasing too few goods. You have a situation where the capacity of the nation to consume outstrips its capacity to produce. But that does not mean that that is an excuse which exonerates the Government. It may be typical of the blame that attaches to the Government. Other countries in a similar situation can give their people spectacular tax relief. The latest example is the U.S.A., where the Johnson administration is giving tax relief in pursuance of the policy announced by him to eliminate poverty in the U.S.A. What would it not mean to South Africa if we had a Government which also tried to eliminate poverty? Why cannot this Government do so? There is greater government spending in the U.S.A. than there is proportionately in South Africa, and there is a larger income per capita than here, yet they have inflation under control. Only yesterday the Minister told us that the dollar is still one of the most stable currencies in the world, in spite of this vast spending and tax relief. Why cannot this Government do the same? I will tell you why, Sir, by telling you why the American Government can do it. The American Government had the imagination even in the previous century and up to 1922 to bring in immigrants in large numbers to help them to increase the productivity of the nation. This Government, from 1948 to 1960, refused to carry out an immigration policy for which the foundations had been laid by the previous United Party Government. It shows incompetence, lack of vision and foresight. Secondly, in the U.S.A, it is one of their great sources of pride that they use the skills of their people in the interests of the entire community. Under this Government I believe that South Africa is one of the few countries where, as a matter of general policy, the Government sets about excluding the skills of the people from service to the people and denies the people the opportunity to add to the productivity of their country by the talents God has given them. It denies it by legislation and administrative action. That is the main reason why there are inflationary tendencies in South Africa and why we cannot get tax relief. It is due to incompetence and short-sightedness on the part of the Government. When the Minister of Finance says he cannot give tax relief because of his fear of inflation, he means that this is the penalty South Africans have to pay for a government which fails to raise the productivity of the nation. That is the Government’s fault. To state that it is an effort to combat inflation without defining the causes of inflation is to state a half-truth and to make an invalid excuse.

We feel that in this Appropriation Bill the money available to the Government is not being appropriated for some of the most essential purposes. I do not want to go into that again because we had a discussion on it yesterday and we then moved an amendment expressing our view. [Interjection.] The point is that we are being criticized because we ask that this surplus should be used in the true interests of the ordinary people of South Africa. We are told that the Minister is in the position of a man who has won a big prize and everybody wants to advise him how to spend his money. What a simile to use! What sort of a lottery is this, where people are compelled to take a ticket whether they trust the administration of the lottery or not and where the prizewinner is determined in advance, and can be only one person, the Minister of Finance? But that is the sort of argument with which we are answered when we plead in the interests of the people of South Africa.

While the policy of the Minister of Finance, forced upon him by the circumstances caused by Government policy, forces all the people of South Africa to make unnecessary sacrifices, I believe there is not a single productive sector of the population which suffers more under this Government than the farmers. There are thousands of farmers who hear about the boom but do not experience it. The farmers of South Africa are having a difficult time because in many ways the Government has abandoned the main principle of the United Party’s Marketing Act, which was that the farmer should be entitled to a fair reward for his enterprise over and above the cost of production. We have the situation in South Africa where farming is becoming unproductive to most farmers, except for the land barons who are so adequately represented by the so-called farmers’ group of the Nationalist Party. Sir, if you want substantiation for that, I will call a witness who is in the House now, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs, who on 4 September last year made a very interesting point and a very honest point when he pointed out that in 1936 we had 179,000 White farmers, that by 1960 the number had been reduced to 118,000, and that by 1963 it had been further reduced. And then he expected the decline in the number of farmers to continue at the rate of 2,400 a year and said that by 1968 we would have fewer than 100,000 farmers; 93,000 was the figure quoted. At the same time he made the point with great emphasis that the number of Black people on the farms in South Africa was increasing quite spectacularly. The point I want to make is this. One would expect that where this is the position there would be on the part of our two Ministers of Agriculture and the Government a bold and imaginative policy for the farmers of South Africa, because the situation is serious. We recently had a commission investigating the depopulation of the platteland. This commission reported that at the present rate of decrease in our farming population there would only be 420,000 people, White people, dependent on farming by 1970, but if the rate of increase of Black people on the farms is maintained there will be 4,000,000 Black people dependent on agriculture by 1970. By then only one out of 11 people dependent on agriculture would be White. Most interesting of all, in paragraphs 167 to 173 of the report, a sample analysis was done of the farms in Natal and the Free State, and what was found? Already by then 25 per cent of the farms in the Free State were occupied by Bantu alone and in Natal it was 85 per cent.

One must be fair. The tendency for the number of farmers to be reduced is worldwide. You find it in Britain and Europe and the U.S.A. If you read the publications, especially the Monthly Bulletin of the Food and Agricultural Organization, you find that in Europe from 1950 to 1960 industrial production increased by 65 per cent, but agricultural production only by 25 per cent. Changes in the composition of the farms are encouraged in Europe, but not so in South Africa under the present Government by negative methods, through forcing farmers off the land by foreclosing on them after having given them too easy credit for many years. We should note, in passing, that for many years the Government’s answer to the problems of the farmers was to lend them money on easy terms, encumbering their land and branding their livestock. But now that very generosity of the past is being used in a negative way to reduce the number of farmers.

But just think how different the policy is in most European countries. There we find that changes are encouraged. In Germany, from 1949 to 1960, farms smaller than 10 hectares were reduced by 300,000; 20 per cent of the total farms of that size have been enlarged, but they did it in an imaginative way. For example, they gave special pensions to farmers to enable them to exist while they changed their vocations. They gave them incomes to support them while they were changing their vocations. They bought their land on an annuity system, so that for the rest of their lives they would have an adequate income in order to make these adjustments. They did not do what is done in South Africa, to force farmers off the land, without making any provision for the adaptation these unfortunate people have to make when they are moved rrom one type of life to another. And for the man who has grown up and become middle-aged on a farm, it is a cruel revolution, to which the Government is utterly indifferent. In Europe you find that although they admit that in some cases the small farmer has to disappear, they nevertheless follow a vigorous policy and a bold policy of supporting those small, marginal farmers who have some hope of survival. They do it by giving them a supplementary income. The Food and Agricultural Organization tell us that in Austria there are 105,000 non-viable farms, seen purely as agricultural units; but 70,000 of them can continue as farms because their occupants have supplementary incomes. By the decentralization of industry and the diversification of the economic activity in the rural areas, they make it possible for 70,000 out of the 105,000 on non-viable farms to continue to exist by giving those farmers supplementary incomes. In Denmark during the last few years 10 per cent of the farmers have been given supplementary incomes which were made possible by vigorous, imaginative government policy. What is interesting is that during the discussion of the policy of our two Ministers of Agriculture, there was not the slightest indication that things like this were receiving their attention or that they were interested.

What are we doing for the vocational training of farmers who have to leave the land? What are we doing to follow the example of European countries and of the United States of America to investigate and to apply income support for marginal farmers rather than merely price support, because price support, as the hon. the Minister has complained before to-day, is more to the advantage of the already wealthy farmer who does not need help. The poor farmer, the marginal farmer, will benefit more by a form of income support. Do you know, Sir, that in Sweden, according to the latest figures that I could find, small farmers, all those with land smaller than 10 hectare, get a cash subsidy varying from 200 to 400 kroner a year?

Why did the Ministers of Agriculture not tell us something about the process known as vertical integration which is taking place among many farmers in Europe? Of course, they will not talk about that because integration to them has a sinister meaning. By “vertical integration" in Europe they mean a system and organization of agriculture whereby major undertakings assist the farmers with their raw materials, with their seed, with labour, buy their products at guaranteed prices and assist them with marketing. It is done by private enterprise with spectacular results. In France, for example, in the poultry industry the number of broilers produced under such a system was only 117,000 in 1954 but by 1960 the number had increased to 24,000,000. I do not say that that is the total increase in the production of France, but the producers of 24,000,000 broilers were having the advantage of this highly organized organization and efficiency, which is described there as vertical integration. Then there is also what they describe in Europe as horizontal integration, a division of labour, a creation of central services. For example, one reads that in the Netherlands they have organizations to enable small farmers to hire labour in groups. They keep down the cost of labour; they make the use of labour more permanent and more efficient. Sir, is their any indication that the two Ministers of Agriculture in South Africa had any idea that such things could be investigated in South Africa? No, all we are told is that the farming population of South Africa will have to decrease at the alarming rate of 2,400 a year for the next five years. Sir, I think one finds the key to the situation in the Treaty of Rome, to which I referred, where it is clearly stated that the agricultural policy of the governments concerned can only succeed if it is supported by a general economic policy of progress, a general policy which would include the vigorous and imaginative decentralization of industry. But the question remains what is to become of the dispossessed farmers of South Africa? The hon. the Prime Minister had a suggestion to make in the Other Place on 5 or 6 June. I will not quote from it, but he will agree that he made a very interesting suggestion there, that many of these farmers of South Africa should eventually be given plots on schemes like the Pongola Scheme or the Orange River Scheme but on a different basis, as peasant farmers, where each farm will be farmed not by an entrepreneur with employees but by a family, by a husband and wife and their children, a retrogressive step, Sir. In most parts of the world people are trying to get away from that particular type of social and economic organization because it leads to a blunting of the initiative of the human being, to reduced opportunities for self-realization and development. But in the Senate of South Africa the Prime Minister comes along and seriously suggests such a plan as one of the solutions of the problems of the farmers of South Africa. The alternative is that our farmers will have to become—because that is all they can do— semi-skilled workers in our industries. At the same time it is the policy of this Government to decrease the opportunities for White people to find work in our industries in semi-skilled occupations. The policy of the present Government is to decentralize industry, to encourage new industries and, I want to emphasize, existing industries to go to the borders of the Bantustans, to make semi-skilled and unskilled occupations available to the Bantu. Sir, it will be nice for the Bantu, but if that is the policy of the Government, what is going to happen to the large number of farmers who have to leave the land as the result of Government policy?

If Government policy is really analysed, it boils down fundamentally only to one thing, and that is an attitude—not a policy, but an attitude—to the non-White people of South Africa. That, Sir, brings one to the failure of the Government’s basic and fundamental policy, the policy which aims at the solution of Bantu problems especially, but in general all non-White problems in South Africa. We have the Bantu Affairs Department; we have the Bantu Education Department; we have the Indian Affairs Department; we have the Coloured Affairs Department; all struggling to apply and to administer a policy which it is impossible to implement, all battling with an impossible situation and an impossible ideal, something which is fundamentally impossible. Because what is this policy? It is based upon the statement that we have heard from the Prime Minister this Session that a multi-racial state cannot exist; indeed the Prime Minister said that a multi-racial state does not exist anywhere in the world. I am sure that that was a mistake, an oversight on the part of the Prime Minister; so I will not go into it, but he did say that. And, because he believes that a multi-racial state cannot exist, South Africa’s races must be separated, as far as the Bantu are concerned into separate states, to which they will all have to look for the achievement of their political aspirations; many of them will still have to work in the rest of South Africa, but will have no permanent rights there. That, basically, is the Government’s policy, but immediately the Government frustrates its own policy by saying that it will not allow White skill, White enterprise or White capital to enter the Bantu homelands and to develop them to attract labour there. Instead they come with the cumbersome, and in many ways, uneconomic suggestion that industries must now be started on the borders of the reserves, the theory being that the industries will always be on the White man’s side of the reserves. The Blacks who live in their own country must come out and work in the White man’s industry. That is the theory, Sir, and, as a result of the economic activity of residents of the reserves or Bantu homelands in these border industries, each Black worker, according to the Prime Minister, will create economic activities to support 25 other people. That is the theory, but what does it mean in practice? What does it mean if you are serious about the policy of separate development, as apartheid is now euphemistically called? It means only one thing, and that is that, in order to draw the Black people out of the existing so-called White areas of South Africa into the Black areas, you have to create more jobs in the Native homelands than in the rest of South Africa. Not even this Government will force people to go into an area to starve as unemployeds, with no hope whatsoever for their future. They must go to jobs. I think that is common cause. And if they inust go to jobs, then those jobs must be created within the Bantu homelands, and those areas must therefore be developed faster than the White areas of South Africa. If you want to reverse the trend of population movement by 1978, the magical date that we have been given, then, Sir, you must now begin to develop those areas faster than the White areas of South Africa; and if you want to develop them faster than the White areas of South Africa the consequence is inescapable; then you must invest more capital in the Bantu areas of South Africa than in the White areas of South Africa; otherwise the policy of separate development becomes meaningless. Sir, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not here, but his deputy is. I want to ask him to give us some clarity on this issue. I do not ask difficult questions across the floor of the House to embarrass him, but we are interested in this, the people of South Africa are interested and the people of the world are interested in this. I want the hon. the Minister, if possible, to take part in this debate and to tell us how the Government proposes by 1978 to reverse the flow of population in South Africa so that, instead of coming into the White areas, the Bantu will go into the Black areas; to tell us how they are going to develop those areas, what amount of money they will invest. Sir, this is a friendly challenge because, if the hon. the Minister says “yes”, he will make it possible for us, not to support his policy, but to defend it, then at least the policy will have a moral basis, and we shall be able to defend it in the world outside. Is there any member of the Nationalist Party who is willing to face the inescapable consequences of their own theory, and advocate the investment of more capital in the Bantu homelands than in the rest of South Africa?

I need not waste much time on Bantu education, but let us look at the Bantu education policy of the Government. Sir, never let us be chary in giving credit where credit is due. Great work is being done to-day to educate more Bantu than ever before in South Africa and to combat illiteracy among them. There are good features of the policy. But there are also most unfortunate features, for example, the fact that there is a differentiation between the education given to the Bantu who come and work for the White man in the White man’s cities and the education which is given to those Bantu who stay in their own homelands. The policy is to limit educational facilities for Bantu children in the White cities and to extend educational opportunities rapidly and greatly in the Bantu homelands. But, Sir, the test is what do the Bantu think of this policy? That is the test to a large extent. Already in the Transkei there is tremendous pressure, to which the Government there is yielding, to abandon the policy of the present Minister and to revert to the previous policy of education which obtained in the Transkei before this Government got there; for example, to get away from the attempts through education to make tribal institutions and the tribal way of life inescapable parts of the Black man’s life. They want to re-introduce English and Afrikaans, civilized Western languages, as the official languages of education in that area, against the desire of this Minister. But, of course, they will not do that, because the Minister is compelled to carry out an impracticable, unjust, impossible policy. We are sorry for him, but that does not mean that we want him to stay there, so that we can exhibit our grief; we want to get rid of him, so that we can get decent policies in South Africa.

The point is that, if you want any Native policy, whether it is the Government’s Native policy or our Native policy, to succeed in South Africa, the key is economic development in every part of South Africa, unshackled by stupid ideologies, but encouraged by vision and confidence and faith in the future of South Africa, and in the common sense of the people of South Africa to make adjustments from time to time as they become necessary.

That, Sir, brings one to the Minister who is chiefly responsible for the economic development of South Africa. I am sorry that the Minister of Economic Affairs is not here. I do not want to attack him personally; I only want to deal with his policy in so far as it reflects the general policy of an incompetent Government, of which he is unlucky enough to be a member. I do not think that anybody who takes an interest in the affairs of South Africa will deny that there is much dissatisfaction in South Africa amongst all the people WHO nave fixed incomes, especially people who are wage earners and smaller salary earners. One need only read the statements by trade union leaders in the country to appreciate that. This chiefly derives from the fact, as I shall show in a minute, that the Government have no policy for bold and imaginative industrial development in South Africa, except in the border areas. I want to say at once that it would be wonderful if the border areas developed industrially, just as wonderful as it would be if the Native homelands in the reserves were to be developed industrially. We, on this side of the House, would like to see industrial development to the advantage of all the people of South Africa, everywhere in South Africa. That, of course, is the major difference in approach and attitude between the Government and this side of the House. Look what is happening after 16 years of Nationalist Party government. To illustrate my point, I want to talk for a moment about what is happening on the West Rand, that part of the Witwatersrand which has been represented by hon. members opposite longer than any other part of the Witwatersrand. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has been the member for Krugersdorp under a Nationalist Government and as a member of the Nationalist Party for 17 or 18 years. Let us look at the West Rand. Sir, the area of Krugersdorp, Oberholzer, Randfontein and Roodepoort comprises 1,300 square miles, twice the size of the East Rand from Alberton to Springs, the rest of the Witwatersrand, excluding Johannesburg. It is in the heart of one of the richest developing areas of South Africa, between magnificent Johannesburg on the one side and the tremendous surge of activity on the Far West Rand and in the Orange Free State goldfields. It has a White population of 130,000, one-third of the population of Johannesburg. The White population there has an income of only R90,000,000, one-half of the income of the Whites on the East Rand, one-fifth of the income of the Whites in Johannesburg. These facts are based upon a new series of researches done by the University of South Africa’s Bureau of Market Research.

What is your point?

My point firstly is that poor Krugersdorp has a Member of Parliament who is not interested in Krugersdorp. I am amazed to see that he registers surprise when I tell him what is happening in his own constituency. He should know what is happening there. Sir, the gross manufacturing output of Johannesburg is more than R600,000,000; the gross manufacturing output of the East Rand approaches R400,000,000; the total manufacturing output of this vast area on the West Rand is R60,000,000. The reason why there are problems and difficulties in that area is that the West Rand lacks industrial development, in spite of its strategic situation, in spite of its wonderful people, in spite of their ability and in spite of the resources which are available there. Sir, if Krugersdorp was ten miles away from a Native homeland it would be encouraged to develop and the people there would achieve a higher standard of living, but, because it is far from a Native territory, it has to face this situation after 16 years of Nationalist Party rule, that it is the poorest area on the Witwatersrand, an area where mines are closing down, where the problems will increase. Look at Germiston. On 10 May of this year Dr. J. D. van der Merwe did a sociological review based on the experiences of 1,200 families in Germiston. What did he find? It is unbelievable. He found that 5.38 per cent of these 1,200 White families, 70 of them, had an income of less than R50 per month; that 11 per cent of them had an income of less than R70 per month. I am glad, Sir, that for a moment there is silence. We are all shocked to think that White families, not individuals, but White families, in South Africa are expected to live on incomes of less than R50 per month, and on incomes of less than R70 per month. But, Sir there is no encouragement for Germiston to raise the standard of living of these people. On the contrary, experience has shown that it is the policy of this Government to discourage the establishment of industries in that area. In 1953 2,000 White people were employed in the clothing factories of Germiston, but under the policy of permitting industries to pay lower wages in areas near to the Bantustans, that number has been reduced from 2,000 in 1953 to only 500 odd to-day; in this area where White families have to live on R50 per month. Now you will understand, Sir, why we are constrained to say that this Government is unfit and incompetent to govern a developing country. Sir, the Government was warned. In August of 1958, six years ago, the Germiston Chamber of Commerce expressed the fear that Germiston would become a ghost town as a result of the threat to the clothing factories. They said that more factories should be attracted to the town and that the factories already there should be retained if disaster was to be avoided. These, Sir, the the consequences of Government policy. But I wish you would come with me to the platteland of the Transvaal, to the Western Transvaal. I will take you to towns in the platteland where, under this Government, some years ago beautiful hostels were built to accommodate hundreds of children, and to-day they stand empty. They cost hundreds of thousands of rand, and to-day there is not a single child in them, because of the lack of social attraction and the lack of economic activity in these areas. Those areas have water, they have railways, and they have fine roads; they are ideally situated for the decentralization of industry, but, Sir, they are not ten miles from a Native reserve! Let me go to quite another area of South Africa. In Grahamstown there are Whites who are unemployed and more Coloureds who are unemployed. Grahamstown is in the Ciskei, and it applied to the Government to be given the status of a border area so as to be able to attract industry; and the reply came from Prof. Rautenbach, the chairman of the Special Committee for the Location of Industry, that Grahamstown was 35 miles from the nearest Bantustan; if it would move to ten miles from the Bantustan, then apparently it would get new industries. How ridiculous can a policy be, how callous can a policy be! Sir, these are people who need work in order to be able to live, but, because they are 25 miles too far from a Native area, they cannot be given the opportunity to become employed in industry.

My time unfortunately is running out. There are so many members of the Cabinet left to whom I have not come yet. I would hate to do any of them an injustice by ignoring them, but I take it that they will accept that the only reason why I cannot deal with them is lack of time. Sir, this is the policy which the hon. the Minister of Information has to defend. He spends most of his energies and most of his time upon the people of South Africa, preying upon prejudice and fear and exploiting a sense of insecurity in order to frighten people with this “Black bogey" in South Africa. But he also tries to justify such a policy to the great world outside and he fails, to our distress. I would say that the hon. the Prime Minister should have appointed his most efficient, his most competent Minister to this job.

Perhaps he did.

It has been said, and I repeat it—I do not support it, but I want the Prime Minister to know that this is the reaction of many people—that he said that once we became a Republic he would take representatives of the English-speaking community into the Cabinet. He kept his word, and we give him full marks for that. But it has also been said that, by appointing people such as he has, he has shown his contempt for the English-speaking people of South Africa.

That is a most reprehensible remark, of which only you are capable.

I will say it again, Sir.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I believe that I speak for my colleagues on this side when I say that we believe that one of the key portfolios in the Cabinet is that of Information, whose task it is to try to restore the good image of South Africa in the eyes of the world and to combat the evil propaganda that is made against South Africa, and I repeat that we do not believe that the present incumbent of that portfolio is fit and equipped to perform that most difficult task, and it is unfortunate for South Africa that that task has been entrusted to him.

Sir, this is also the policy against the background of which the hon. the Minister of Justice has to maintain law and order in South Africa. I like the hon. the Minister of Justice; I think he is an able man. He is certainly the best debater I have heard from that side of the House for many years and we respect him for that, but look at the unfortunate position in which he finds himself. Owing to the fact that this Government is denying a political outlet in this House, through limited representation, to a large section of our people; owing to the fact that opportunities for legitimate political expression have been removed, there is a growing tendency in South Africa for political expression in South Africa to find illegal outlets, and the only way in which the Minister of Justice can contain the situation in South Africa is by putting more and more people into gaol. We have been told, in reply to a question, that almost 1,000 people are held for what can be termed political offences.

Go to UNO.

No, such imprisonment may be legitimate; I am not arguing that. But I say it is time the people of South Africa look into fundamental causes. We cannot deny that one of the fundamental causes of the difficult situation in which the Department of Justice and the police find themselves is that we have a policy which is fundamentally unjust. The Government can shout at me and accuse me of whatever they like, but that truth cannot be avoided. No responsible South African dare seek to escape that truth. Here you have a policy which denies to millions of people the right of family life, the right of home ownership, the right of permanent employment in the location of their own choice. Any policy like that must look for trouble.

Do you say “millions of people"?

I say millions of people because millions of people are employed in the urban areas of South Africa and are affected by the laws administered by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and those laws do exactly what I have said here. Such a policy must be examined and each one of us must search our conscience to find out what the fundamental causes are, and as long as we have in South Africa a Government pursuing these policies …

Are you prepared to grant them all those concessions you mentioned?

Yes, of course. The policy of my party is to give a detribalized Black man the right to own his own home; to give him the right to have permanent employment; to give him back what he had before; give him back his right of domicile. All those things are part of the policy of the United Party; we are not ashamed of it, we are proud of it. We say that the hope of South Africa depends upon the implementation of a policy such as that of the United Party. Let there be no mistake about that. Sir, we have the situation in South Africa that the Government cannot afford to let the people of South Africa share, as they should share, to the full extent in the prosperity of South Africa. The Minister has an over-inflated surplus; he cannot give it back to the people from whom, according to his predecessors, he had no right to take it. From that one can come to only one conclusion and that is that the people of South Africa cannot afford to have a Government such as this. As far as we are concerned, we on this side of the House shall continue to fight, with the assurance that success is inevitable, to remove this Government from power and to give to South Africa the type of Government that a decent, civilized state consisting of decent, civilized people is entitled to have.

I am amazed that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) should come forward this afternoon as the United Party’s new expert on heaven alone knows what. There are about 51 Departments in the country and he has taken a peep at each one of them. He also referred to Europe to see what he could tell us of Europe instead of telling us about South Africa. I think that it was very reprehensible of the hon. member to make the remarks he did in connection with the hon. the Minister of Information. There is not one member of the United Party who can take over any of the duties of the hon. the Minister 6f Information, not one of them. They think they are wonderful but the public do not share that feeling and we in this House know that they are not what they think they are. As I have already said, the hon. member for Yeoville is always brought into a debate when the United Party think that they have a very weak case and want somebody to lay a smokescreen. He spoke so quickly and made such a hullabaloo towards the end of his speech that one could hardly hear what he was saying.

He referred to people who are in gaol for political crimes. He was undoubtedly referring to yesterday’s court judgment. I want to remind him that the judge in the case said that even if there was not one National Party Act on the Statute Book to prohibit political or other crimes, those people would still have been guilty of high treason. This is an old law which exists in all countries.

Why then were they not accused of high treason?

The judge said quite clearly that the State did not accuse them of high treason but of other crimes. He also said that in effect they were guilty of nothing but high treason. Our reply to the world is that we have these people here who commit crimes which would not be permitted in any country in the world, not because of the laws of to-day, not because of the National Party laws but because of laws which are centuries old, laws against high treason. Because of this fact no country can make any accusations against us in regard to what has taken place in connection with the Rivonia trial.

The hon. member went from point to point but he did not analyse any one point properly except to tell us what somebody else had told him had happened in Holland, in Austria, in Germany and in similar countries in connection with agriculture. That hon. member and I became members of this House at the same time. I still represent my old constituency; we Nationalist members still represent the constituencies which we represented then but he is already representing his third one. He runs from one constituency to another. Because he has done this the voters will not be so foolish as to believe everything that the hon. member for Yeoville tells them. He has so much to say about agriculture and about the fact that the farmers no longer have confidence in the Government. Other hon. members of the agriculture group will deal further with this matter but I want to say this to him: South Africa still remembers the soya-bean bread; South Africa still remembers how the United Party Government fell because of its agricultural policy; South Africa still remembers the failures of the United Party Government. How many rural seats do the United Party hold in this House? They hold no rural seats at all. Their leader was formerly the representative of Hottentots-Holland. What seat does he represent to-day? He is the member for the Nusas people at Rondebosch; he represents those noise-makers and liberalists. We have here the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), the hon. member for Rondebosch (Sir De Villiers Graaff) and the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). They represent urban seats. They can no longer win rural seats because their agricultural policy is too weak.

The hon. member told us how ineffective our Bantu policy was and how good theirs was. But since when have the United Party had a Bantu policy? I understand that the United Party have a policy of allowing eight Bantu representatives to take their seats in this House. That is true, is it not? I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville why this number should be eight and not one or 80?

Why do you have four Coloureds’ Representatives?

The Coloureds’ Representatives are not under discussion now. I am speaking about the Bantu policy of the United Party. I want to ask the United Party why this number should be eight and not one or 80? Mr. Speaker, this is a purely opportunistic figure on which they have decided; it does not mislead anyone who uses his own common sense because the point is not how many representatives one gives the Bantu in this House; the principle at stake is whether one will give them representation or not. Once they have been given representation in this House the same thing will happen to us as happened in the countries to the north of us. I think it was ten or 12 years ago that Northern Rhodesia gave the Bantu one representative and to-day the Bantu are governing that country. We do not believe that story of theirs of eight representatives. Nothing of that nature exists. They themselves do not know what they want to do with the Bantu because they have no Bantu policy.

I want to come back to the other stories which the hon. member has told us here.

You will need a week in which to do so.

Yes, that is the trouble. He made so many allegations that it is not possible to reply to all of them.

In connection with our economic policy the hon. member took the hon. the Minister to task for having a surplus of R 120,000,000; he wanted to know how much of that money the people were going to receive. We heard the same story yesterday. It is nothing but cheap politics with a view to the provincial council elections next year. Hon. members must not think that we have forgotten their history. We know what they did when they were in power. Let us take the question of old age and war veterans’ pensions; this is a matter which was discussed at length yesterday. Hon. members must not think that we have forgotten what they did in this connection. In 1939, when war broke out, Mr. Madeley, who was a member of the Labour Party, became Minister of Labour. When the cost of living rose during the war years, he introduced a cost-of-living allowance for workers. In 1945, the cost of living rose by 125 or 126 points. Mr. Madeley then left the Cabinet. We had a United Party Minister of Labour from that time until 1948 when we took over. During that period the cost of living again rose by 25 per cent but notwithstanding all the representations we made, the United Party refused to increase the cost-of-living allowance by one penny.

It rose automatically.

It did not; it was pegged. It could only be increased by the Minister by way of proclamation and the United Party Minister of Labour refused to issue a proclamation to have it increased. This was one of the points we made during the election. When we came into power the present Minister of Transport who was then Minister of Labour increased the cost-of-living allowance in proportion to the rise in the cost of living.

He adjusted it from time to time as the cost of living rose. That allowance has already been consolidated in basic salaries.

Let us look for a moment at the other matter about which the hon. member had so much to say yesterday. This is the question of social I tell you that when we came into power the pensions. Mr. Speaker, will you believe it when means test stood at £30 per annum? The means test was £2 10s. per month. The maximum pension paid to a White person in the city was £5 per month. Since we came into power in 1948 the cost of living has risen by 59 per cent but that rise is not the increase reflected in the adjustment of social pensions. Those pensions have increased far more than the cost of living has. In the last few years of their term of office the United Party refused to adjust pensions in proportion to the increase in the cost of living which took place at the time. In 1948 the means test was £30 per annum. It is not 59 per cent higher now, which has been the increase in the cost of living, but 300 per cent higher; it is now R180. A person whose income is less than R180 per annum can now be paid the full pension. In 1948 the maximum pension paid to an urban pensioner was £5 per month and it was even less in the case of the rural pensioner. That pensioner now receives R27 per month. His pension has been increased by 270 per cent, not simply by 59 per cent which is the extent to which the cost of living has risen. A person earning more than £84 per annum in 1948 was not entitled to a pension at all. Even if he has an income of R310 to-day, he still receives a pension. Moreover, he is paid a considerable bonus which gives him a pension in excess of R100 per annum. In 1948, war veterans received £5 per month; to-day they receive R420 per annum, that is to say, an increase of 350 per cent, not simply of 59 per cent which has been the increase in the cost of living. The maximum pension for old-age pensioners was £84 plus their own income in 1948. To-day it is R598 together with own income for war veterans and R502 for old-age pensioners.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended I was discussing the question of old age and war veterans’ pensions. I gave figures to indicate that there has been a tremendous increase in these pensions since the National Party came into power. I also pointed out how badly these pensioners were treated under the United Party Government. The actual position is that the National Party has increased benefits to these people by about 300 per cent while the cost of living has only risen by 59 per cent. We have greatly increased the standard of living of these old people in that their incomes have increased far more than the cost of living has risen. Accordingly, it does not behove the United Party to pretend that they are the protectors of the workers and the aged. They are not and have never been. Their own party admitted as much in 1948. Since that time, of course, they have had second thoughts. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that in 1948 the United Party gave the Labour Party a few constituencies to contest. They issued pamphlets in which they made an appeal to their supporters to vote for those Labour Party candidates. What did they have to say in those pamphlets? I should just like to quote a few sentences from the pamphlet issued by Mr. Okkie Oosthuizen, their principal secretary, in order to show you, Sir, that they did not consider themselves capable of representing the workers. Just listen to this—

Like the Nationalist Party coalition with the Labourites in 1924!

In 1924 we followed the same policy as the Labourites did in regard to the workers. We did not tell the people that we were incapable of representing them. This pamphlet goes on to say—

Our Party’s leaders were firmly of the opinion that it was in the country’s interests that the section of the population for which Labour usually speaks should be represented in the House of Assembly.

In other words, the United Party did not speak for the workers and so they had to have Labour members in this House to speak for those workers. That is what they said.

That is an old argument.

It may be an old argument but it is still an effective one and we will use it in the provincial elections which lies ahead.

This brings me to another important point made by the hon. member for Yeoville. When he made this point he became so excited and emotional that he began to foam at the mouth just like an epileptic. But he did not make any impression upon people who know what is going on. I refer to what he said in regard to the industries in this country. He told us that the government was leading our industrial development in the wrong direction. He said: Just imagine an amount of R400,000,000 is invested in industries on the East Rand and only R60,000,000 is invested in industries on the West Rand! He then told us that there was no industrial development on the West Rand. But when he quoted statistics in order to prove how badly things were going, he gave us the figures for the East Rand with its R400,000,000 and not those for R60,000,000 area of the West Rand, where, apparently, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) does his work so badly! I want to ask the hon. member when this Government has ever prevented anybody from establishing an industry where he has wanted to establish it. He knows that the Government does not do that sort of thing. A few weeks ago I said in this House that our industries should be licensed so that we could determine where they should be established and so that the State could have control over them, and the United Party were unanimous in their protests against this point of view. When the hon. the Minister said that he did not see his way clear to introduce a provision of that nature, they cried out “Hear, hear!" The hon. member now wants the Government to have these industries established at Krugersdorp, at Roodepoort and at Germiston and similar places. Where is the logic in his attitude? No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must not try to make us believe these things by telling us these wild tales. I want to tell him that if he is going to fight the provincial council election on the basis of stories of that nature—the speech which he made here this morning was nothing less than an introductory speech as far as that election campaign was concerned —we will give them such a thrashing that there will be very few of them left in South Africa.

Our policy is very clear as far as industrial development is concerned. Our policy is that labour-intensive industries must be established close to the large sources of labour—the borders of the Bantu areas. Capitally-intensive industries can be established in the cities. But we do not force them; we can only influence them by giving them special concessions. They can still be established at Johannesburg if they want to. Notwithstanding the fact that the position on the Rand is that the East Rand and West Rand attract few industries but that the Central Rand area attracts many industries, the hon. member has told us that the Government should move some of these industries. But when we suggest ways and means of doing so, his Party opposes those suggestions.

The other day I quoted statistics to show that 89 per cent of the new industries erected on the Rand preferred to be in the central area, in Johannesburg. Three per cent preferred to go to the East Rand and eight per cent to the West Rand, or vice versa; I am not too sure about this. It was not the Government which instructed them to go there; they went there of their own volition. If we want a sound industrial policy we must have a starting point. The hon. member spoke about decentralization and said that it was a good thing. But every step that this Government has taken to decentralize industries has been opposed by the United Party. I think that the hon. member for Yeoville must concentrate upon matters about which he knows something but if he does so, I am afraid he will be concentrating upon nothing. I also want to tell him that certain basic factors have to be taken into consideration when industries are established. One cannot establish an industry at a place where the necessary raw materials are not available, where the necessary labour is not available, where the necessary water is not available and where one is not within reach of the necessary markets. With this as a foundation one has then to build one’s industrial policy on a long-term basis; only then can one determine what is scientifically sound as far as the establishment of industries is concerned. That is what the Government is doing. The entire planning section of the Department of Economic Affairs is concentrating on this matter. The advice that one obtains from them is excellent advice. If industrialists listen to them they will not only do themselves a great deal of good but they will do a great deal of good for the country as well and then we will have the necessary decentralization.

I must hurry on. Before I conclude I just want to bring one matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister—the Usury Act and its application. During the course of this Session we have passed a few very important financial measures. Amongst others, we have passed the Banking Amendment Act, the Building Societies Amendment Act and other similar measures. There remains one important matter which to my mind is economically unsound and that is the Usury Act. You know, our Usury Act provides that a person can, I think, make a profit of 12 per cent on money which he lends. We find that some of our large financial institutions and some of our small deposit-receiving financial institutions hire-purchase contracts. They do so on this basis; they say that one can borrow the money at eight per cent or nine per cent on an instalment system, but then they calculate that interest on the total amount for the full period, while, on the average, one should only have to pay on half the total amount for the full period. They go further and they add a raising fee for money which they do not raise but which has been invested with them by depositors. They go even further and they add finance charges. When one adds all these amounts together one finds that these people are receiving a rate of interest of from 20 per cent to 22 per cent. I contend that this is an exploitation of the people who borrow from them. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot amend the Usury Act so as to define what is meant by “12½ per cent interest”. We cannot allow the position to remain as it is now.

My time is also up. I just want to tell the hon. member that he has accused other people of incompetence. For example, he has accused the hon. the Minister of Information of being incompetent. He has accused the hon. the Prime Minister of having appointed the hon. the Minister of Information as such. I want to ask him what he has already achieved except to run from one constituency to another. I think that the hon. member for Yeoville should try to see himself as others see him. I am afraid that if he does this and sees himself as really he is, he will ask the voters of Yeoville to send another representative to Parliament because he will realize that he is not capable of representing them properly.

The hon. member who has just sat down chose to say of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) that he did not know what he was talking about. Well, let us have a few examples of the type of argument that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) has advanced in his speech here. First of all he tried to ridicule the United Party’s policy of group representation for Natives here in Parliament. He said: What policy is this of putting eight Native Representatives here in Parliament? Surely he should be aware of the fact that people like General Hertzog and General Smuts had accepted that as policy that Natives should be represented here on a group basis. But the funniest thing of all is: What did his own Government do, what did his Prime Minister do when he removed the Coloureds from the Common Roll? What else but to give them group representation here. If our policy as far as the Natives are concerned in giving them group representation is stupid, then surely their policy as far as the Coloureds are concerned, is just as stupid.

That is no parallel, at all.

That is one example to show the logic of the hon. member. Take another instance. He quotes figures here to show that the real standard of living of the old-age pensioners has risen over the last 16 years. Is he surprised if anybody’s standard of living does rise when the country becomes much wealthier? Or does he think it is a miracle under the Nationalist Government if anybody’s standard of living does rise? Surely it would have been most shocking if the standard of living has not risen. Our quarrel with the Government is that it does not rise fast enough, taking into consideration how much wealthier the country has become. Surely it is the duty of any government of a civilized country that the wealthier a country gets the more attention it should pay to its under-privileged classes.

What did you do for them when you were in power? They had nothing then.

Really, I think one does not need to spend much time on his arguments. He challenged me and he challenged the hon. member for Yeoville to say where industries were stopped from going to the West Rand or to the East Rand. I would like to draw the hon. member’s attention to a statement made by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration (Mr. M. C. Botha), who addressed the Municipal Congress in November last year, and who told his audience that it was the responsibility of every municipality to acquaint itself with the factual position of the presence of Africans in its area and to take the necessary steps to stop urbanization. Then he went on to say—

Then he ended his warning and said—

In other words, Mr. Speaker, he does not stop industry, but he stops their labour. Because in South Africa industrial development, as every statistic shows is synonymous with an increase in your Native labour force. There is simply not enough White labour and other forms of labour, certainly not in the Transvaal, for industrial development. In any case, I think I have shown that really it is not worthwhile to analyse the arguments used by the hon. member. These three examples show how illogical the hon. member himself is who accuses the hon. member for Yeoville of being illogical and of not knowing what he is talking about.

I wonder if in the whole history, any government has ever had a policy that has so little hope of solving the fundamental problems facing it as this Government has with its so-called policy of separate development for the different racial groups. I say this for the simple reason that it is incapable of being carried out in practice. For that reason it is a dead-end policy. What the Government is really doing with the nation is to lead it up the National garden path of which the end is a dead-end. It is a cul-de-sac, it is “ ’n straat loop dood" policy. I will prove to the hon. Minister why I say this. I do not like to say things that I cannot prove. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, the Government promised the electorate that if only they accepted apartheid, or separate development, they would keep the Republic White. I hope the hon. Minister will admit that that is the whole basis of their policy. This is a very attractive bait. I might call it “White" bait that the hon. the Prime Minister, a great fisherman, holds out to the White electorate in this multiracial State that is South Africa. No wonder they had such electoral successes as the hon. member who has now left the Chamber told us. It is because of this bait of saying “We will keen the Republic White”. Now who of us in all honesty if we had the choice would not rather live and hope that our children and grandchildren will be able to live in an allWhite society. Not because we regard the non-Whites as inferior, not for one moment. But we realize how difficult it is to maintain Western democracy in a multi-racial society, how difficult it is to maintain Western values and traditions in a multi-racial society in Africa, of course we realize also how readily one gets political grouping in a multi-racial society and what a paradise it becomes for the political agitator, whether he be White or Black. Now what the Government in effect is therefore saying to the White minority in this multiracial Republic, which we in fact are is, “If you vote for us, you will not have to live in a multi-racial Republic any more”. That is in fact what they are saying to the people. The hon. the Prime Minister is honest enough to admit that. He says “of course to bring about this White Republic, we will have to establish independent Black republics in our midst, and there are attendant dangers, but that is your choice”. And faced with that choice, there js no doubt that if the White electorate believes that, they would take this bait. They are told of course that the only alternative is that the political power will pass from the hands of the White man. Now for the past 16 years we have heard this story, and for the past 16 years, as every population statistic shows, we have remained very much a multi-racial society, very much a multi-racial state. In fact in every economic activity in our national life, from agriculture to industry, we find that the percentages of non-Whites involved have increased steadily over the past 16 years. What in fact we have had in the past 16 years is on the one hand increasing apartheid, or separate development, as far as leval and civil rights are concerned for the different races, but on the other hand increasing economic integration. What has really happened is that Nationalist policy has gone one way and the reality of South African life has gone the other way. In short the myth of a White Republic has become much smaller. The White Republic has a rainbow quality about it: The nearer you get, the further it recedes. Of course as children we were always told that if we would only run fast enough, we could catch up with the rainbow. This is exactly what the Government is telling the electorate to-day: Just run fast enough after apartheid, and you will catch up with it. Alas, for the same reason, because of reality, they will never catch up with it. What are these basic realities? I would like to try to put them as simply as possible in this House. Our official statistics show for instance that if we look at our population increases in recent years, and if we just look at the non-Bantu section, that is to say the population groups comprising the Coloureds, the Whites and the Indians, those who do not belong to the Bantu section, we find that the Whites are increasing at a rate of nearly 50,000 a year, and if we look at the Coloureds we find that they are also increasing at a rate of nearly 50,000 a year. If you look at the Asiatics you find that they are increasing at a rate of 15,000 a year. The net result is of course, Mr. Speaker, that all demographists are agreed that in the absence of sustained massive White immigration, the Coloured and the Asian population will within one or two generations exceed the White population. Now the Government admits that they are permanent residents in the so-called White Republic. How on earth then, I think one is entitled to ask the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, can they go on claiming that apartheid will keep the Republic White, when it is only a question of time when the Coloureds and Asians alone will outnumber the Whites in the Republic? How can the hon. Prime Minister possibly claim that Coloureds will never sit in this Parliament and that Asians will never be able to sit in this Parliament, and at the same time say that apartheid does not discriminate? Those are questions of fact, not political statements or anything like that, and in the end these questions will have to be answered. One can postpone the answers, but one cannot delay it for ever. Even if one accepts all the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s expectations about what will happen to the Black man under separate development, it is still totally misleading to claim that apartheid will keep the Republic White. For even then the Republic’s population will ultimately consist of a majority of Coloureds and Asiatics. Or is the hon. the Prime Minister simply going to get round this little problem by ultimately declaring them White? That is the only way in which I can see that he will in the end be able to claim that apartheid leads to a White Republic.

So far I have only argued on the basis that even if all Black men could be kept out of the White Republic in figure, we will still not have the promised White Republic of the Government and the Prime Minister because of the population realities in respect of the Coloureds and Asiatics. But of course it is an impossibility to keep out the Black man from the so-called White man’s economy, both from the point of view of the White man and from the point of view of the Black man.

Let us first of all deal with it from the point of view of the White man. The White man in South Africa is very largely responsible for the savings and investments of the order of very nearly R 1,000,000,000 a year. This figure of investment, which of course will grow in future, makes the growth of our economy possible by establishing new and expanding existing industries, mines, farms and commercial enterprises. The White man in fact can be proud of the fact that he is the main innovator of all progress, creating new jobs for all races and raising the living standard. That is the actuality of South Africa. Now investment of this order year after year of course requires a rapidly expanding labour force, tens of thousands extra workers every year. Investment and expansion of this order, it has been calculated, requires at least 100,000 new workers every year. Where are these new workers to come from? If we look at the supply of labour that comes into the labour market every year— certain figures have been calculated and published in the “S.A. Journal of Economics" in June 1963, page 146—then we find that the increase in the male labour force for the periol 1961-6 and 1966-71 would be as follows. If we take the first period 1961 to 1966, we find that the increase every year of the male labour force in South Africa every year was about 87,000 per annum, of all races, and I have already said that our economy probably requires some 100,000 extra workers every year. From this figure the Whites accounted for only 17,500 or 20 per cent, the Coloureds plus/ minus 10,000 and the Asiatics plus/minus 4,500. In toto all the non-Bantu races therefore provided only 32,000 per annum. This is a figure totally inadequate for the investment requirements of the order of about R 1,000,000,000 a year. But if we look at the increase in the Bantu male labour force, we find it is about 55,000 per annum, nearly one-and-two-third times as big as all the other races put together, and it is only because the South African economy could draw on this Bantu labour in the past, that we have been able to extend at the rate that we have. How on earth is the Republic going to have the rapid economic growth which government spokesmen promised us and of which the economy is capable if we do not have the Natives, the rapidly expanding Bantu labour force? The point of the matter is that the degree to which government promises will be fulfilled, will really depend on the degree to which apartheid fails. That is really the formula. The greater the failure of apartheid, the greater the expansion of South Africa will be. That has been the case in the past and it is inevitable because one is dealing with realities and not political myths. This must be the pattern of the future.

But what of the Black man himself? His numbers are increasing at the rate of about 250,000 per year. Jobs and increasing standards of living can only be found for them because of the vast capital investment of the White man. Without the economic progress brought about by the White man, the Black man will have to starve. That is the simple reality. For generations to come it is inconceivable that their own homelands can have a capital investment and a rate of economic growth to provide them with jobs, to provide them with sustenance—a population increasing at the rate of nearly 250,000 a year. The simple truth is that for the foreseeable future the White man cannot do without the labour of the Black man and the Black man cannot subsist without the work provided by the White man. That is the simple reality of South Africa. In other words, the Republic will remain a multi-racial state, whether the White man or the Black man like it or not. We will just have to face up to the political problems of a multiracial state, whether we like it or not. To pretend that we are a multi-racial state, as the Government is trying to do, does not solve a single national or international problem. The evasion of realities never solves anything. It simply aggravates all problems because it simply postpones them. And that is precisely what the apartheid policy is doing in South Africa. It is not solving a single fundamental problem. It is simply damming them up and postponing them. We only have to look at what has happened in the past 16 years to realize the truth of this. Thus despite the efforts of the Prime Minister in the past few years to give more content to apartheid, the Republic is more isolated than ever internationally, for no great Western power has been convinced that his Bantustan policy for instance justifies apartheid as far as it applies to the Coloureds and Indians. Nor do they believe that Bantustan is an answer to the political problems created by the permanently urbanized African. And of course this theoretical de-urbanization that we have had this Session with the passing of the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill does not take anyone in either. On paper you can deurbanize people who live in urban areas, but nobody is going to believe that except hon. members on the other side. Nobody is going to believe that they are really permanently deurbanized as the result of a passing of a law. Internally the legal and the civil separation of the races, which apartheid largely amounts to, once the races become more integrated economically, cannot lead to an improvement of race relations. It can only lead to increased racial friction. For all it does is to destroy bridges between the races living in the same economic communities and day after day working together on the same farms, in the same factories and in the same mines. Until the Government accepts the realities of multiracialism, it will make no progress towards a solution of the problems of a multi-racial society. It is because its policy and plans rest on a state of affairs that never existed and will never exist, that its policy is a dead-end policy, as I called it before. When you come to the end of the road, it can go no further. How is the Government for instance going to win allies amongst the Great Western democratic powers in the world if they regard discrimination in the name of apartheid not as a temporary phenomena, as hon. members on the other side like to make out, but as something permanent for the simple reason that they do not believe in the feasibility of separate development, because they do not believe it is practical? How is the Government going to relieve racial tension in South Africa by refusing political rights to non-Europeans on the basis of pretending that they are only temporary sojourners in the White Republic? The Government’s policy can never solve the problems of a multi-racial society, because they simply shut their eyes to the fact of multi-racialism. They deny the fact that we are a multi-racial state. They seem to believe that if you shut your eyes to an unpleasant phenomenon, that phenomenon simply disappears. That is really the whole philosophy of the Government. Whatever the Government members might say to ridicule our race federation policy, at least it faces up to the reality of the fact that we are a multi-racial state and that we will always have different races living together in the same political entity. We squarely face the fact of multi-racialism and we are trying to make the necessary adaptations so that our multi-racial society—that is what we are aiming at—can remain a democratic society which upholds the great Wesern moral and legal principles which our forefathers brought to this country.

The hon. member for Jeppe (Dr. Cronje) has repeated the old story his Party has told us here so often, the old story of the increase in the numbers of nonWhites amongst the Whites. I think that that story has been analysed so often and by so many people, including the hon. the Prime Minister, that the hon. member should leave the matter at that. Hon. members in this House have been shown a graph indicating the stage at which this increase will stop and at which the number of these non-Whites will start decreasing. The hon. member has tried to justify his argument of integration on the grounds of the increase in the Coloured population and the Asiatic population and that is why he is resigned to intergration and accepts it as the only policy. But I do not rise to reply to what the hon. member has said here.

I want to refer to what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has said. Unfortunately, he is not here now. I think that this House deprecates the frothy sentimental way in which the hon. member has tried to tell us that the hon. the Minister of Information is an insult to the English-speaking people of South Africa. I think that this House deprecates that statement. I want to know whether the hon. member is himself an example of an Afrikaner who is allowing himself to be used to try to foster a wrong English sentiment who is allowing himself to be used as a floormat for a race-dividing policy of that nature. That is all that the hon. member has done. It is strange that it should be that hon. member who should have taken it upon himself to attack the Government on its agricultural policy and to tell this House how badly things are going with agriculture in South Africa. Is it perhaps because a few days ago we had the spectacle, when the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing introduced the Marketing Amendment Bill, of seeing that the speakers on agricultural matters in this House in the United Party camp were those persons precisely who had repudiated the farmers and agriculture when they opposed the Co-operatives Act? Is it for that reason that the hon. member for Yeoville has suddenly been required to discuss agricultural matters?

Because he has said that things are going so badly with agriculture, it is necessary for us to place a few facts on record. I want to analyse the position as far as agriculture is concerned, not on the basis of what politicians have to say in this regard but on the basis of a few reports that have appeared. Firstly, there is the Annual Report of the Board of the Land and Agricultural Bank. If there is one organization which is outside the party-political arena and which has to deal with agricultural matters every day, which has therefore to act objectively, it is the Board of the Land Bank. What do they say in their Annual Report? They say this (translation)—

In other words, things were completely normal. But they do make an admission, and this is the point seized upon by the hon. member and his party. They say (translation)—

This happened because of natural conditions in the drought-stricken areas but the hon. member and his Party try to make use of this fact for their own gain. I think that it is a sad day for agriculture in South Africa when agricultural matters are dealt with in this way. I want to give another example. In the same report there is a table indicating the amount of loans given to farmers. I am not going to analyse the table point for point. I just want to mention two examples and this is the yardstick that we must use. It is stated in this report that from 1912 when the Bank came into being, up to the end of 1963, the number of properties sold— 1,998 of them—amounted to only 1.586 per cent of the total: that is to say 1.586 per cent of the total of 125.920 mortgage loans granted throughout this whole period.

What do you think of Table 7?

I want to ask hon. members to mention a comparative table in any one of the facets of our economy in which there have been fewer failures than in this regard. There are certain branches of our economy in which failures result because of poor management or as a result of other circumstances. I am reminded of a recent case during the past 18 months in which an amount of R 10.000.000 disappeared because of the failure of certain financial institutions. How does this compare with agriculture? But we do not say that things are going badly with our economy. No, agriculture is selected precisely because we have a few places in South Africa which are experiencing drought conditions. When hon. members discuss agriculture I should like them to try to see the agricultural economy in the same perspective as they see the rest of the economy of South Africa. They must not be guilty of misrepresentation. I want to take another yardstick because hon. members may say that it is only the wealthy farmers who are assisted by the Land Bank. Let us see how the less wealthy farmers are faring, the farmers who cannot be assisted by the Land Bank but who have to be helped by State Advances. Let us take the yardstick of State Advances, according to their report. I want to congratulate them on this fine report. They say (translation)—

And this is true because they are the people who have to carry the less-privileged farmers. They go on to say (translation)—

What now of the statement of the hon. member who had so much to say and who told us that things were going badly with the farmers? But this is the point that I want to make. They give us reasons why certain specific assistance was given. They say that farmers in the drought-stricken areas have been assisted and that those who already owe money to the Office have also been given every assistance. What has happened in this case? The hon. member has said that the farmers in the drought-stricken areas are sold up, that they then have nowhere to go and so disappear. I am not going to waste the time of the House by analysing the assistance that has been given in this regard but I want to analyse the districts in which the hon. member says these people are sold out. At Kenhardt assistance was given in eight cases; at Maclear, five. Those are the only cases in the Cape. In Natal the district having the highest number of cases was Est-court with five. Let us look at the Transvaal. At Brits. 22 farmers had to be assisted; at Letaba. 26 at Lichtenburg, nine. Let us compare these figures with Volksrust where four farmers were assisted and Wakkerstroom where only two were assisted. We find that assistance has to be given throughout South Africa in certain circumstances. If things are going so badly with the farmers, why is it that only two farmers had to be given assistance at Wakkerstroom, which is a large district, only four in the whole area of Volksrust, only one at Witbank and only two at Wolmaransstad? The drought conditions there are not so severe, but at Warmbaths or Waterberg where the drought is bad, there were 19 farmers who needed assistance. The hon. member for Yeoville is trying like a vulture to prey on the misfortune and difficulties of that group of people stricken by the drought. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself.

He is asking for assistance from the Government.

I do not think that there has ever been a Government since 1910 which has given as much assistance to the farmers as this Government has. The hon. member is not asking for assistance. He is trying to win a few votes as an agitator. The hon. member says that the Government assists these people by selling them up and that they are then uprooted. He has told us that the Government must not tell the world that it is going to rehabilitate the farmer who has an uneconomic unit and settle him under the Orange River Scheme or under the Pongola Scheme. He told us that these would only be “peasant farmers" or bywoners. In order to strengthen his case he tried to compare the position here with that in Europe. Let us analyse this position. This Government established the Pongola Scheme which the previous Government neglected and wanted to sell to the Hulett company. Some of the most progressive farmers in the whole of the Transvaal are there to-day. That scheme has ensured that every settler has an average income of R9,000 per annum. This is the bywoner class of farmer whom he has been discussing and whom the Government has on its settlements! What right does he have to say that the Orange River Scheme will make bywoners of these people and that there will be bywoners at Pongola? Has he said this to make these people suspicious and to angle for votes or has he done so because he knows that the settlement scheme which they had under the old Conroy system made bywoners of these people? They did not allow a child to stay on the farm with his parents and they carried out raids on these farms. But this Government has established one of the finest settlements in the whole world there in order to assist the farmer. If a holding is advertised there, between 400 and 500 people apply for it. Are there so many people who want to apply to become bywoners? This proves how groundless his arguments are.

Was it not this Government which last year and this year passed legislation to make it possible for farmers farming on uneconomic units to obtain more land? What right has the hon. member to angle for a few votes in this cheap way, on arguments based on the drought-stricken areas? It is an evil day for the United Party when they get their speakers on agricultural matters to attack the Co-operative Societies Act and their speakers on industrial matters to plead the case of the farmers.

I want to mention another example. The hon. member has told us that things are going so badly with the farmers. Let us look again at the report of State Advances. State Advances lent an amount of R37,700,000 to the farmers. This is a large amount. This amount was lent to the less-privileged farmers about whom those hon. members are so concerned. How much of this amount is irrecoverable? Only R 114,318. This is less than .3 per cent. The farmers were even assisted to enable them to feed their labourers. Of this tremendous amount advanced to them an amount of only R114,000 cannot be recovered. Is this not adequate proof that the position of the farmers is sound, except for those in the drought-stricken areas? I come now to the assistance given to them. The economy of South Africa has never been as prosperous as it is to-day. The hon. member for Jeppe quoted from the report of the Netherlands Bank. Why did he not read what the Trust Bank has to say? They say this (translation)—

This is not a party document; it is a Bank Report. They go on to say (translation)—

But I want to come back to agriculture. Hon. members tell us that agriculture is not enjoying its rightful share of this tremendous economic upsurge. We can analyse this statement through the medium of a few figures. I want firstly to compare agriculture’s contribution to the net geographical income of South Africa. In 1947 it was 14 per cent and it is now 9.8 per cent, and for that reason hon. members try to tell us that things are going badly with agriculture. But what do world economics prove? They prove that if the contribution of agriculture is larger than that of industry in any country, that country is an underdeveloped country. In other words, the larger the percentage outside agriculture and the smaller the percentage of agricultural income, the more developed is that country. This is the position throughout Europe and America. One finds that that scale changes in regard to every industrial country. One finds in countries which are very underdeveloped that agricultural income forms a high percentage of national income. This is a good sign.

But I want to mention another example. If I take the increase in agricultural production, if I take the index figure of 100 for 1947-50, and I compare it with the figure for 1962-3, I find that agriculture increased from 100 to 192; horticulture to 207 and animal husbandry to 147. Does this indicate a static position or does it indicate a sound growth in agriculture? But what do we have as one of our most important examples? The hon. member speaks about debt. It is true that if a man owes R10 and he does not have the R10, he is bankrupt, but if he owes R15 and he has R20, he is in a better position. In other words, one has to consider capital investment before one starts talking about agricultural debts. Let us compare these debts with capital investment in agriculture. I want to take the figures for 1948-50 and compare them with those of 1963. I find that the increase in capital investments in land was 128 per cent. As far as permanent improvements are concerned, the increase was 104 per cent; in the case of livestock it was 111 per cent and for machinery and equipment, 114 per cent. In other words, the increase in capital investment in agriculture was 120 per cent. When we compare the increase in mortgage loans and State advances with this figure, we find that it is far below 100 per cent as against the 120 per cent increase in capital. On what does the hon. member for Yeoville base his argument that things are going so badly with agriculture? Let him refute these figures if he can.

Why are you so concerned if things are going well?

Do we look concerned? We are simply refuting the wrong statements of the United Party. Is that why he is concerned? No, the hon. member is only mumbling to himself.

I have just indicated what the position is in regard to agricultural debts, but all those hon. members ask is that assistance be given to the farmers. Are they strangers in Jerusalem? Do they not know of the assistance that is being given? It is common knowledge. The hon. the Minister made a Press statement a short while ago in regard to the rebate schemes for transport services on the Railways in all the drought-stricken areas, rebates of 75 per cent on railage and road motor services in respect of the transport of stock and stock feed. What better assistance can one find? In the case of private transport, the State has gone so far as to put a rebate scheme into operation in order to subsidize private transport in the drought-stricken areas so that the farmers who cannot obtain sufficient state transport can make use of private transport. Let us look at the rebates in regard to private transport in the drought-stricken areas in the Northern Transvaal. For a distance of 20 miles, it is 15 cents per lb.; For 40 miles, 30 cents; for 60 miles, 50 cents and for 80 miles, 70 cents. Rebates ere given on all these amounts. Let us take the transport of stock feed. There is a rebate of 10 cents for a distance of 40 miles, a rebate of 10 cents for a distance of 70 miles and a rebate of 20 cents for a distance of 120 miles. The assistance is being given but it is not the only assistance that is being given. Because the hon. the Minister has his finger on the pulse of agriculture and because he wants those farmers to keep their stock alive, because he wants to make it possible for those farmers to remain on their farms, he has made special loans available for the retention of stock. These loans are as follows: Purchase of stock feed to a maximum of R20 for 10 head of large stock and R40 for 100 head of small stock per month. He has gone further and is paying for the transport of stock and stockfeed by private contractors and the purchase of fuel for the farmers’ own vehicles and so forth. He is financing the entire farming operations of those people. There is also the payment of rent for grazing to a maximum of 25 cents per head of large stock per month and the purchase of cattle licks to a maximum of 75 cents per head per month. In other words, the Government which is accused by the hon. member for Yeoville of not giving assistance to the farmers is financing the entire farming operations of the farmers in those areas in which the drought is at its worst and is keeping them on the land. There are loans for the purchase of necessities for farm labourers. Even the farm labourers are fed when the farmers are no longer in a position to feed their labourers themselves. [Time limit.]

We should have liked to have steered the debate in a different direction, but the great agricultural expert opposite, the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) brought the debate back to agriculture so specifically that we shall just have to follow him.

Refute those figures.

While that hon. member says we must refute the figures, I should like to tell the hon. member for Wakkerstroom that he went on record this afternoon not as the champion of the cause of the farmer, but as that of the Government, and he says the farmers are doing so well that they need nothing, and he confirms it with figures. He criticizes the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and says he dealt with agriculture as if he is a layman as regards agricultural matters. It does not require an expert on agriculture to show that the farmers are not getting their legitimate share of the prosperity. If the hon. member for Wakkerstroom wants to show that the farmers are doing so well that they are getting their legitimate share of the prosperity, he may go on record for that, but let us analyse the figures for a moment.

He says this body which is non-political, namely the Land Bank, is a mirror and reflects how things are going in agriculture, but like the good economist he is, he of course only quotes those figures he likes to quote, and any monkey can juggle with figures, [nterjections.] But what does the latest edition of Agriconsay? It says the mortgage liabilities of the farmers to the Land Bank in 1948, when this Government took over when the farmers were having such a lean time, was R39,000,000, and in 1958 it was R54,000,000, and in 1962 when that terrible drought had not yet come along, it was R 126,000,000, but in December 1963, the commitments of the farmers in respect of private mortgages amounted to R 133,000,000 That shows how well things are going in agriculture! But he uses another argument. He uses the childish argument of comparing the farmers’ indebtedness with the capital investment, and what does he use? He uses State advances and the Land Bank as if these are the only commitments the farmers have against their investments of R5,000,000,000. Now the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, the expert on agriculture, says the criterion whereby you have to gauge the position, is the commitments of the farmers to the Land Bank and State Advances and you must compare that with his investment. Does he not know that the overwhelming majority of agricultural debts, the mortgage bonds, are held by financial institutions other than the Land Bank?

While I am dealing with the Land Bank. I should like to deal also with the system of financing available to agriculture and I am glad the Minister of Finance is here. I am very sorry that while the Ministers of Agriculture knew that agriculture was going to be discussed, they are conspicuous by their absence and that they are not here to refute the statements made. I should like to dwell upon the system of agricultural financing and I do not wish to be misunderstood. The farmers in South Africa are thankful that the Land Bank is there to take their bonds. I should like us to deal with this matter objectively when I make the point that the financing of the farmer is not looked after, while he is engaged in a risky undertaking which is greater than any other undertaking in the country. While I am referring to the Land Bank, let us talk through the mouth of the agriculturist who was above politics when he made the following statement at the Congress of the South-Western Districts according to a report in the Press, that a deputation should go to the Prime Minister to ask for the establishment of a special emergency aid fund for grain farmers so that they may be enabled to borrow money at one per cent interest. That proposal was made by Mr. Robertson. While I am on this point, let us analyse that position as regards the Land Bank and its financing of the farmer, and having done that, I should like to deal with the kind of financing the agricultural industry will have to have before it can be rehabilitated. The liabilities of the farmer to the Land Bank in the form of mortgage bonds and loans, and the liabilities of agricultural cooperatives in aid of agriculture by way of mortgage bonds and short term loans, are common knowledge and I shall not dwell upon that too long. At the end of last year these amounted to R313,000.000, and that is a shocking and colossal amount. Nor do I wish to dwell long on arrear interest. Hon. members Opposite say it is due to the drought, but the fact remains that the financial position of the farmer has deteriorated to a marked degree during the last two years, and that in proportion to the rest of the economy he cannot keep his head above water at all, and I should like to analyse the reasons, and if we can agree on that we shall reach a stage where we can tell the Government and the Minister of Finance that we require a different kind of financing for agriculture.

Let us take a mortgage bond for R 1,000 and see what it costs the farmer. At six per cent interest, he has to pay R60 per annum and then he must pay the redemption on the bond. I take a bond with a redemption period of 25 years, for 25 years is virtually the longest period for which he can get the loan.

You know 25 years is not the longest period.

If I were to take a shorter period the rates will be higher and the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) ought to know that. So I take a redemption period of 25 years, and I take a bond for R 1,000. The interest on that will be R60 per annum, and the redemption together with, the interest will amount to R87.23; the insurance premium is R17, a total annual commitment therefore of R95.23; which means an interest rate of 9.6 per cent the farmer has to pay on his loan at the Land Bank if one takes into account the last payment. If the farmer had been able to take up that same loan for the same period with a building society, there would be a difference of only .2 per cent. It is as clear as a pikestaff, therefore, that the finance facilities available to the agriculturist at the present time are of such a nature that it does not enable him to carry on his industry in such a way that he can make a decent living out of it, and then still be able to compete on the world market. I am making this submission, Mr. Speaker, because the man, the firm or the industry taking up a loan with a building society can insure every item in respect of which he takes the loan. He can insure his building; he can insure his furniture; and the business man can insure his stock-in-trade. What is the position of the agriculturist? Is he in a position to take out insurance against every risk in the agricultural industry?

Yes, even his life is insured.

Can he insure his land? Can he take out insurance against the vagaries of the climate, against floods, against the exhaustion of his soil? Can he insure his stock, or can he insure his crops unless he is prepared to pay a premium which he simply cannot afford? It is as plain as a pikestaff that the risks in agriculture are greater than in any other industry in the country and yet the agriculturist is not in a position to take out insurance to cover these risks. So it obviously is necessary that a different form of financing should be made available to the farmer. The young farmer especially cannot risk taking up a loan with the Land Bank. The risk involved in a mortgage bond granted to a young man of 25 years running for the period up to his 50th year, is so much smaller than in the case of the older farmer. Therefore the young farmer tries to obtain finance facilities from other sources, sources which are unsympathetic to agriculture; they regard it simply as a financial investment. The young farmer therefore runs the risk that the institution with which he takes up his bond, is wholly unsympathetic to the agricultural industry and that that institution may ruin him by calling up the bond at a time when he is unable to make other arrangements to insure his investments. One of the great problems is that the farmer is unable to insure against these kinds of risks. We have never thought of establishing a scheme of insurance for this purpose, such as there is in many other countries of the world. The hon. member for Somerset East has mentioned that the farmer can insure his life also. Of course he can; he can even insure his children and even his servants, but he is unable to insure his capital assets, and that is why I say that it is extremely essential that some finance scheme should be established under which the farmer can obtain loans at a much lower rate of interest than that at which people in other industries involving less or virtually no risks, can obtain loans. Where a person has taken up a building society loan on immovable property, he can insure his immovable property for the amount at which he purchased it, and he therefore runs no risk; he merely has to pay the premium. Sir, if we were to establish such a finance scheme, we shall not be the first country in the world to do so. There are numerous other countries with similar schemes. In America for instance there is the Agricultural Credit Corporation which grants loans to agriculturists. The rates of interest vary, according to the security the farmer can provide, from 3 per cent to 6 per cent, and in some cases it is even less than 3 per cent. I should like to say here that in South Africa no steps at all were taken during the good years from 1950 to 1953 when agriculture flourished, to establish a finance scheme under which the agriculturist could borrow money at a lower and more reasonable rate of interest. When all is said and done, surely it is one of the methods of keeping costs of production down, and there is a host of other methods whereby it can be done. We have already mentioned that the cost of production of the agriculturist can be kept low by way of exemption from or reduction of customs dues, by way of cheaper power, cheaper equipment, cheaper spares, cheaper containers, cheaper bags. If you can keep the costs of production of the agriculturist down, you enable him to make a living even at the present prices. The burning question when all is said and done, is whether the man can make a living or not. If he can borrow his money at lower rates of interest and still obtain the present price for his products, you are at the same time solving to a large extent the problems of the small farmer and the uneconomic unit, because he will then be able to produce more cheaply and make a living. It is no good arguing about it; it is an economic fact which is as plain as a pikestaff. If you can assist these people to produce more cheaply, a much greater percentage of them will be able to make a living even at the present prices.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to proceed to other aspects of agriculture and say a word or two on storage facilities and cold storage facilities for which organized agriculture has always been pleading. During all the years I have been concerned with organized agriculture, since the year 1928, and during the 20 years I served as Chairman of various agricultural organizations, the agriculturist has always been pleading for the establishment of storage facilities to enable him to store his dairy produce, his meat and his perishable products in times of surplus production. Right up to this late stage in the year 1964 there is not nearly sufficient facilities for the storage of our surplus supplies of perishable products. I say it is a disgrace that this Government has refused through all the years to make the requisite provision for storage facilities to take agricultural products in times of surpluses, with the result that farmers are compelled to export their surplus products, frequently at uneconomic prices. I do not have enough time left to deal with all the products, but I should like to mention one, namely dairy products. According to the latest report of the Dairy Board the transactions in connection with the 1962-3 season have not yet been finalized but the report indicates that during that year 15,000,000 pounds of butter had to be imported, and 3,000,000 pounds of cheese. We had to import into this country 15,000,000 pounds of butter. While we had to export large quantities of butter and subsidize the exports, we now again have to import dairy products and subsidize the imports. The Dairy Board says that the 1962-3 transactions have not been finalized as yet, but the loss on the imno-ts of butter was R200,000 and the loss on cheese R96,000.

But the farmers are doing very well!

In this one year alone we suffered a loss of R296,000 on the importation of dairy products because we did not have the necessary storage facilities; because we did not have the necessary vision and because the two absent Ministers of Agriculture would not listen to the advice of organized agriculture. Against this loss of R296,000 there must be written off a sum of R124,000 in respect of customs duties. The Government in the first instance subsidizes the export of products, then again it subsidizes the importation of the same products, for which the consumer then has to pay a higher price because he has to pay customs duties on that imported butter and cheese.

Now I should like to say a word or two on the neglect of our soil by this Government, and in this connection I should like to quote what was said by Dr. S. J. du Plessis, Chief Director of Agricultural Research, at this same conference—

Can the farmers not retaliate?

Dr. Du Plessis did not refer to the vegetation only. Every farmer sitting opposite who knows the coastal area and I am now referring to the area from Uitenhage as far as Queenstown, the part where the Karroo thorn is taking up the whole area— will know that the farmers are doing everything in their power to combat the problem. They keep goats—not even the kinds of goats that pay, but just any kind of goat—in a attempt to have the Karroo thorn grazed off. What has this Government ever done to help the farmers in the way farmers are helped in New Zealand, in America and in Australia to obtain spraying material to eradicate this weed; by making aeroplanes available for this purpose and to make this area suitable for animal husbandry once again?

Mr. Speaker, the farmers of South Africa, in spite of what the hon. member for Wakkerstroom has said, are not getting their legitimate share of the prosperity we are enjoying in this country, and I wish to blame the Government for that. The agriculturist of South Africa put this Government in power because he thought the National Party is sympathetically disposed to him. Now the farmer is discovering that it is a Government which is not worried about the farming community; which is not concerned about the fact that the rural areas are being depopulated. It will really suit the Government much better if the rural areas were to be depopulated, for then there will not be so many farmers in the rural areas to unseat them. But the same agriculturists who put this Government in power will in the near future settle accounts with them.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), in the amendment which he moved here, charged the Government with incompetence or inefficiency, and because of the Government’s so-called incompetence the Opposition refuse to pass the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. The hon. member referred to the 16 years during which this Government has been in power. Sir, this Government came into power on 26 May 1948, a little more than 16 years ago, and look at its record over the past 16 years. This Session has nearly come to an end …

And so has the Government.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the years the tendency has always been that the longer a Government remains in power the more by-elections it loses; but what is the record of this Government? Not only is it still continuing to win by-elections but its ranks are being strengthened by members of the United Party who cross the floor of this House to join the National Party. Over the past few years something like 22 prominent members of the United Party have resigned, as the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) pointed out here the other day. The membership of the National Party, however, has increased year by year as the result of by-elections which the party has won and as the result of resignations from the United Party.

As the result of the shedding of dry “Blare” (leaves).

If the results of by-elections are any guide as to the incompetence or competence of this Government, then it is as clear as a pikestaff that this Government is an extremely capable Government because it continues to win more and more seats from the United Party at by-elections. The United Party no longer have the courage to contest by-elections.

Sir, hon. members of the Opposition had a great deal to say here with regard to agriculture. If they are in earnest in saying that he agriculturist is faring so badly, then surely one would have expected them to nominate a candidate to contest the recent by-election at Beaufort West, which is a rural constituency, but they made no attempt to do so.

What about Ixopo in Natal?

The hon. member need not talk about Natal because they are also in the process of losing their Natal seats. There was also a by-election recently in an industrial centre like Vanderbijlpark. The United Party dare not contest a by-election in a rural constituency but one would have expected them to nominate a candidate to contest the byelection in an industrial centre like Vanderbijlpark but again they did not have the courage to do so. There will be another by-election shortly at Mossel Bay and we are waiting to see whether they are going to nominate a candidate. Since the National Party have come into power the United Party have not won a single National Party seat at any by-election or any general election.

Mr. Speaker, this Session is almost over. Nearly a hundred Bills have been introduced so far, a large number of which have already been passed. Apart from Bills which have been introduced, there are two important reports which have been submitted to the House, the report of the Press Commission and the report of the Odendaal Commission on South West Africa. I think the Opposition agree that the Government acted wisely in the case of both those reports.

By ignoring the reports.

No, the Opposition said that the Government had acted wisely, as far as the Odendaal Report is concerned, in accepting only those recommendations which it did accept. As far as the report of the Press Commission is concerned, the report still has to be studied by both that side and by the Government, and that is why the Government has not yet reacted to the report.

The second matter, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to touch upon is the economic position of this country and to whom the credit is due for our flourishing economy. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government would naturally claim all the credit for itself but he went on to say that our economy was flourishing not as the result of Government action but in spite of the Government. Well, if the Opposition refuse to give the Government credit for our flourishing economy, let us see what the opinion is of other bodies and persons in this connection. I refer in the first place to the report of the Standard Bank for October last year, in which the position of industry, the banks, the wholesale trade and the retail trade is dealt with. The report specifically refers to the progress in all these sectors of our economy and then refers to the position in other Africa countries such as Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Portuguese East Africa and Kenya. What is the position in those countries in contrast with the prosperity that we are experiencing in all sectors of our economy? I quote—

But if the Opposition refuse to accept what the Standard Bank says, let me quote the view of somebody to whose opinion they probably attach more importance, that of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, with regard to our financial position. In his recent address as chairman at the annual meeting of Anglo-American Corporation Mr. Oppenheimer said—

Although the Opposition refuse to give any credit to the Government in this connection Mr. Oppenheimer at least is prepared to admit that the Government has carried out its task well.

Let us come back now to legislation which the House has passed up to the present moment. Quite a number of Bills have been passed this Session dealing with agricultural matters, and I think I am correct in saying that with one single exception all those measures were accepted by the Opposition without the slightest opposition. In one single case only, in the case of the Co-operative Societies Amendment Bill, the Opposition moved an amendment, and that amendment was in direct conflict with the inerests of the farming community. The people who strongly objected to this extension of the activities of the co-operative societies were the businessmen and the back-benchers of the United Party who asked that the Bill be held back pending the submission of certain reports. In other words, the United Party has shown clearly during this Session which interests they represent in this House. They are not concerned about the interests of the agricultural industry; they are only interested in legislation affecting the Coloureds and the Bantu and legislation dealing with the colour problem. They allowed Bills dealing with agriculture to go through practically unopposed but they kept us busy for weeks in opposing Bills affecting the Coloureds and the Bantu.

The hon. member for Yeoville made reference here to the depopulation of the platteland and then referred to certain hostels which were allegedly empty in an attempt to show that the rural areas were becoming depopulated. Let me tell the hon. member that there is only one hostel which is empty and that is the one at Aanster on the macadamized road between Sweizer Reineke and Christiana. That is the only hostel which is standing empty, but according to the hon. member the fact that that hostel is empty is supposed o prove that the platteland is becoming depopulated. Sir, if there is one hostel which stands there to-day as a monument to the waste of money by the United Party it is that specific hostel which was built in 1944 on the instructions of an Executive Committee which consisted entirely of United Party members.

We have had to introduce special bus services in the rural areas because the hostels are all full.

I shall rather not go into the details of this matter. I may just say that it was passed without the approval of the School Board. I shall rather not go further into that otherwise I may only tread on the toes of certain persons, and they will be United Party people. That hostel was not justified then, and is not justified now. It cost R250.000 and then they did not have children to fill it. That is one of the examples of how the United Party squandered money. If ever there has been a scandal, then it was the building of that hostel at Aandster. The Provincial Administration tried to fill the hostel by introducing various schemes, but they did not succeed in doing so. It consists of the most modern building, but it should never have been built there. It has never been full from the beginning, and it will never be filled either. That is the deed of the four executive committee members of the United Party put there by the United Party, together with the United Party government of 1945. The hon. member for Yeoville should rather not mention that hostel as an example of the depopulation of the rural areas. I am sorry he did so.

Mr. Speaker, all of us accept that there is a migration from the rural areas to the cities. We are sorry about that; various circumstances are the cause of it. That migration has not been of recent date only. It has been going on since the country began to develop. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that we have already surrendered 14 per cent of the land of South Africa to the urban population and we shall have to continue surrendering more land. In other words, our land is becoming smaller in extent. There are other factors too which cause this migration, however, Both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville referred to the figure mentioned by the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs, namely that from 2,000 to 2,400 leave the rural areas annually. I am not prepared to say that this figure is greater than it was during the years 1932-3-4; nor do I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Yeoville is prepared to say that. What happened to those people during those years? They had to go and work on the roads and on the Railways at 4s. per day. The position is considerably better at the present time. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville wish to do with those people to-day is to have them employed in factories. Is that the way to treat those people now? No, Mr. Speaker, the Government settles those people on Vaalharts and on other schemes where they rehabilitate themselves wi-thin a few years under supervision and guidance. So I hope the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Yeoville will stop trying to frighten the people away from these schemes where we are trying to help those people who did not make the grade. I hope they will stop belittling those schemes.

All of us are concerned and sorry about the conditions prevailing in the Northern Transvaal at the present time. All efforts are being made to bring relief. How are you going to improve the position through the price of a product? Is it possible to put right the conditions which have been prevailing in the Northern Transvaal for the last four years already, by any possible price determination?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville referred the other day to the handling of the Marketing Act, which is merely an empowering act. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) last year said our acts constitute a violation of the Marketing Act. But the Marketing Act is merely an empowering Act which authorizes the Minister to do certain things, i.e. to appoint boards. Seventeen boards have already been appointed under the Marketing Act. Through these boards he gives the farmers themselves control over the products. However, that power was used by the United Party in their day to force down the prices. The Minister of Agriculture of the United Party constantly reduced prices under the power conferred upon him by the Marketing Act. This Government, on the other hand, has always used those powers under that Marketing Act to fix prices internally as high as possible within the capacity of the consumer of the country. Hon. members opposite cannot deny that under any circumstances. This Government has used the powers conferred upon it by the Marketing Act in precisely the opposite way to the way in which the United Party used them in their t-irne.

I should like to refer briefly to one small point raised by the hon. member for East London City (Dr. Moolman) who is not here unfortunately. He referred to butter prices and the losses suffered on butter. He ought to be aware of the fact that there is a shortage of high grade butter, and because the control board took certain steps to encourage domestic consumption, butter has to be imported now. Then we should not lose sight of droughts either, that has contributed to a reduction of production. We also have certain overseas contracts which we do not wish to lapse. In these circumstances we are obliged to use emergency measures in order to tide over the difficult times, and not to make a fiasco of the butter position like that made by the United Party in their time in connection with the importation of mealies. They at the time gave away our mealies to Rhodesia at a lower price than our own farmers were receiving. I should like to point out to the hon. member for East London (City) that no loss is being suffered. The purchase price is 31.87 cent per pound; the import duties 1.65 cent. This means the landed price is 33.52 cent. That will be our domestic market price. So the hon. member for East London (City) has put his foot into it in this respect also.

I do not wish to elaborate on the facilities provided by the Land Bank. However, I hope somebody on that side of the House will explain to us that statement by the hon. member for Yeoville, namely that cheap loans are given by the State. Is he opposed to such loans? Must we discontinue the Land Bank loans? The hon. member for East London (City) says the rates of interest are too high but he added the insurance premiums and then his calculation still is wrong. The hon. member should check those figures again and he will then find that it is not 9 per cent. He added the insurance. Where can a loan be had in the private sector without taking out insurance? When it is considered that the Land Bank went out of its way to obtain cheap insurance premiums for the farmers, then the farmers are already benefited to the extent of some millions of rands.

Before resuming my seat I should like to issud a challenge to the United Party.

Are you going to resign?

I am prepared to resign my seat if the hon. member thinks he can capture a rural seat. I shall oppose him and he can bring along any of his colleagues with him. I want to tell the United Party that they are a failure in the rural areas, and that is why they are where they are sitting now. They are not succeeding in the industrial areas either at the present time. When you listen to the speeches they make in this House, it is clear that they are hoping for abnormal circumstances to come about, circumstances such as those we had in 1933. They will pray for a depression if it will put them in power. The second abnormal condition was that of 1939, when a war broke out and the third abnormal condition that may arise in South Africa is a revolution in South Africa.

I want to reply to some of the points raised by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. The specific point to which I would like to refer is his statement that things have never been better with the farming community than to-day …

I did not say that.

That is the sole interpretation one can place on the hon. member’s remarks. If that is so, I want to ask the hon. member why the Secretary of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing states in his current report where he sums up the agricultural position in South Africa over the past 10 years, that production has increased by 137 per cent, that the value of the farmer’s products has only increased by 71 per cent while the cost of production has increased by 93 per cent, with a declining tendency as far as producer prices are concerned. If the hon. member interprets these figures as a sign of prosperity as far as the farming community is concerned then I think he is stretching things very far indeed.

The hon. member also gave us a summary of the work done during this Session by indicating that about 100 pieces of legislation have been introduced; that we have had debates on two important commissions of the Government’s. But he failed to mention that we have also had other debates. We have debates dealing with the policies of hon. Ministers. It has been apparent in all those discussions that a sort of malaise or political sickness seems to be spreading through the ranks of hon. members on the Government benches. There has certainly not been any enthusiasm to take part in debates. My observation has been that less than one quarter of the benches opposite have been full during these discussions. As the hon. membef for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) pointed out whenever they were in difficulty or stuck for speakers, because of the lack of desire on the part of many Government members to speak, we inevitably had to face either the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins), or the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), or the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), or the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) or, as a stand-in, the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais). Let me also say this that the performance of certain Ministers in handling their portfolios has been pitiful in the extreme. During the course of these discussions we have seen incredible incompetence on the part of some hon. Ministers and a lack of knowledge of the workings of the Departments they are expected to administer. If that is true, Sir, as I believe it to be and as any hon. member honestly knows it to be, then the obvious question arises what is the reason? Why this lack of enthusiasm to present the interests of their constituents and the cause for which the Nationalist Party professes to stand? Why have they failed to fight for that cause as we who have sat in this house over many years have known them to fight? They do not fight like they used to fight. Throughout the discussions on every single Vote, instead of facing up to the realities of the situation, we have had the tactic of looking for scapegoats and blaming everything possible except themselves for the shortcomings in ministerial policies. When we ask for tax relief in view of the vast surpluses declared by the Minister, what is South Africa told, Sir? They are told that they must be grateful for a Government which can declare such enormous surpluses by over-taxation! When we plead for the plight of the small farmer, the Minister says they are a lot of incompetents and potential falsifiers of census returns. That is the attitude of the hon. the Minister towards the plight of the small farmer in South Africa. When we plead for relief for our aged and for the right of able-bodied to work with Government assistance to provide for the future, our pleas fall on completely deaf ears as far as the Minister of Pensions is concerned. Everytime we ask for relief to the aged and the pensioners we are told that they must be grateful for the largesse that falls from the hands of this Government by way of bonuses. When we ask for a dynamic foreign policy to lift our country out of its isolated position, what is the reply? A completely negative reply and the admission that no foreign policy exists. So I can go on and on listing the shortcomings of this Government; all South Africa’s difficulties. [Interjections.] Must all these defects be blamed on saboteurs, on liars, on traitors, on the English-language Press, on the Liberals and on the Progressives? In nearly every single debate in this House these words have been bandied across the floor by such hon. members as the member for Vereeniging and others.

Mr. Speaker, I honestly cannot recall one single constructive positive idea presented, by way of policy and by way of new thinking, with the new vistas of economic potential and creative human relations that lie before us, by any single Minister throughout this Session. I again ask myself the reason why? Is the reason perhaps to be found in the correspondence that was very prominent in the columns of the Afrikaans Press recently? That correspondence was sparked off by the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha). That correspondence was very lengthy. That hon. member wrote a letter to the Transvalerin which he said he accepted that South Africa was already united in a single nation of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking citizens. That was not accepted by other members on the Government benches, such as the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) who took part in that correspondence. When the hon. member for Soutpansberg wrote this letter to the Transvaler—he has not been evident in the debates in this House during this Session—what was he knowledging, Sir? When he said he accepted that South Africa was already united in a single nation of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking citizens what did he accept when he made that statement? He acknowledged that there was no longer room for the sectional approach of the Nationalist Party in the Government of South Africa. What else did he acknowledge, Sir? He acknowledged that the only way in which South Africans could grow to fulfilment as a nation was on the principle of one people, a principle for which the United Party, as represented by this side of the House, has always stood. I believe that not only the member for Soutpansberg, but other of his colleagues sitting on the Government benches hold that view. But even more important is the fact that leaders in commerce and industry and agriculture, men who have voted for his Government and have supported the Nationalist Party, have come to the realization that to-day there is a new and a catching spirit in the air which springs from a fresh reappraisal by the people of South Africa of South Africa’s potentials, both human and material. Sir, we as South Africans are at last coming to see what South Africa can really be. This new enthusiasm which is very evident among the people outside is not based on the old fears and prejudices of Nationalist Party political preaching but it is based on the prospect of new vistas, on economic potential and on creative human relations. Sir, this excitement about a new South Africa is particularly evident amongst South Africa’s two most forward-looking classes, the younger generation and the younger people of South Africa and the businessmen and industrialists who are largely responsible for our present economic explosion. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the people are tired of the old political dogmas of the Government and of the Nationalist Party. It has become apparent to many hon. members on the Government benches that the Government has now reached the stage of diminishing returns. In the field of foreign affairs and our external relations it is clear that they have reached zero. That has resulted in a mounting wave of outside pressure to intervene in our internal affairs by countries overseas. As a result of this outside pressure we have had to spend millions in order that South Africa should be able to show its teeth.

The final crisis of all these developments still has to come according to speeches from public platforms over the last couple of months by Ministers on the Government benches. We are entitled to ask what this crisis is which the Government anticipates in the next two or three years. One may ask what is the main spring of this feeling of insecurity and uncertainty that Government members and Ministers feel about their party affairs and their party leadership in particular? I believe it is because they see that South Africans are changing; because hon. members opposite realize that the changes in our economy are having an effect on the people outside; because it is clear that South Africa is becoming weary of the old ideas; because I believe South Africans are seeking something which will grant them greater fulfilment. The other reason, I believe, is because of the possibilities of new abilities, as have been evidenced in the recent new scientic and technological developments in our own industries and our own capacity to develop in that regard. I believe it is also because of the threatening pressures from beyond our borders. It is also because important Afrikaansspeaking South Africans see their self-interest and the only salvation for South Africa in co-operation between all the races in his country. But I think there is an even more important reason and that is because we as a South African people are weary of being walled up in our legislative groupings. We have a desire, as a people, to be accepted by others. But the most important reason of all is that under the impact of our prosperity our racial fears as a people are tending to dissipate. White South Africa is seeking to take non-White South Africa into a greatness and a better life with it and not to begrudge the non-White races what is their rightful due. But also because there is a growing realization that a joint pride in achievement for our country will be the best safeguard for all of us irrespective of the race group to which you belong. In such a new atmosphere it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is no room for a political party with outdated ideas such as evidenced by the Nationalist Party.

Hon. members on the Government benches may well tell me that is all very well; I am judging the situation on what is said in this House and apparent lack of interest of Government members. Is here any evidence outside of what is happening in the country to-day? Is there any outside evidence of what I have just said in regard to this political sickness that is apparent among many members on the Government benches? In order to find this out I must be able to answer the question: What is the cause of this apparent lack of interest on the part of reasonably-minded members on the Government benches, like the hon. member for Soutpansberg and, I think, many other hon. members? [Interjections.] Obviously I exclude the hon. member for Heilbron. I think this evidence is to be found in the increasing opposition in those who belong to the Nationalist Party ranks to the South African Foundation. It is clear that there is a growing animosity amongst Nationalist Party members to the South African Foundation, an organization which was established with the object of presenting a better image of South Africa overseas based on the co-operative effort of South African irrespective of the language group to which they belong. It is also an organization which has been able to amass many millions of rand and to spend many millions of rand. It is also an organization in control of which sit some of the most important and influential South Africans in our business, financial and industrial circles, men belonging to both language groups, and in the Afrikaans-language group such important personalities as Mr. Jan S. Marais, Dr. Anton Rupert, Dr. M. S. Louw, Mr. W. B. Coetzer, Mr. I. D. du Plessis and others. I am mentioning their names here because I do not think they will look upon it as an insult. The mere fact that this organization was brought into existence to accomplish abroad that which this Government with all its resources could not achieve and obtained the full co-operation and assistance of leading citizens, numbers of whom had supported the National Party is sufficient evidence of a lack of faith in the Government’s ability to adapt itself and to revise its policies to meet the needs of modern South Africa in keeping with Western thought. I personally have no doubt whatsoever that the Foundation has done a far better job of work than the Minister of Information could ever hope to achieve. Basically, Sir, because they have presented South Africa and its people as opposed to the tactics of the Minister of Information who has followed the approach of spending millions of the taxpayers’ money in trying to sell Government race policy, an unsaleable commodity as far as the rest of the world is concerned. What now concerns Government members and the Nationalist Party organizers is the campaign launched by the Foundation for mass membership for the reason that where the Foundation strove to eliminate animosities abroad, Government members view this new drive of the Fundation as having as its objective the elimination of internal animosities revolving around primarily the racial issue. In other words, the removal of the racial issues from the political arena. Nationalist Party politicians and members like the hon. member for Heilbron, the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad know only too well, Mr. Speaker, that if they cannot play on the racial fears of White South Africa by playing the racial tom-tom, they have nothing else to sell today. And what concerns Government members most is the growing realization that more and more South Africans are beginning to recognize this very fundamental fact of the political tactics of the Nationalist Party. The South African people are beginning to realize that we cannot in the face of world animosity afford to play race politics if we hope to survive as a White group and as a nation on the African continent.

We on these benches recognize that with this new phase in our economic expansion, at one of the highest rates in the world, that given civil peace in South Africa, given freedom from outside interference, with the natural ability of our country’s people, of all races, to meet the needs of a forward marching civilization in the twentieth century, we are able as a party to devise policies, to make plans for the greater future and the greater happiness of our people in this country. Because, we have what hon. members opposite have lost. We on these benches have what hon. members opposite have lost—they have lost it in professing to represent the people that they do represent. We believe that there exists a mass of goodwill amongst the people of all races in South Africa to make of South Africa an example to the world of what mankind can achieve by working in co-operation.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) that he has once again been given the party nomination of the United Party for Turffontein, as appears also from the fact that hon. members opposite have said “well done” to him. We can be sure of that. But I should like to give him the assurance that after this kind of speech he made here this afternoon, he will never again have the privilege of representing Turffontein in this Parliament on behalf of the inhabitants of Turffontein, because they will reject him completely there. I want to tell the hon. member that he will not have the privilege to represent Turffontein in this House again.

You will not see Brakpan again.

If ever there is a member who is certain of returning for Brakpan then I definitely am that one. There is nothing wrong with Brakpan, because the inhabitants have the common sense to send the best man to Parliament.

That hon. member is so afraid of isolation. He is obsessed with isolation. That is why he talks such a tremendous lot about isolation. But do you know why he is afraid of isolation? Because the English-speaking people are busy isolating the narrow-minded little group of persons like him. The English-speaking people are walking over to the National Party because they see there is a future for them in the National Party. In the National Party there is a future to-day, and the National Party is not the party that wants to isolate the people. It is the United Party which wants to isolate them. That is why the hon. member comes along with all these scare stories of isolation, but they are not believed and will not count. But now I also would like to ask the hon. member for Turffontein: How far and how long does he think will his party exist with its “all races”? How long does he think he will remain in Parliament, and how long does any of the members opposite think he will sit in Parliament with their “all races”? It is an infamous lie also to refer to a few members and say they are the only persons who step into the breach and who participate in the various debates. The hon. member knows it is so.

Order!

I withdraw that, I am sorry. The hon. member knows he is merely sowing suspicion, but he also knows that this sowing of suspicion will not benefit him in any way, for he knows that every member on this side of the House supports this Government, and they support every Minister, and he knows that right up to the present time this country has never been governed so well as at the present time.

But I should like to return to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I really do think the hon. member, who is a frontbencher in this House, has made a very unfair and injust attack on the hon. the Minister of Information. At the present time the Minister of Information has one of the most unenviable tasks to perform in the Republic of South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) can only make interjections, but he has never moved a finger to do something for this country.

He has been a soldier.

I ask the hon. member whether he has ever been further than Pretoria to defend his country. The great majority of hon. members opposite, with one or two exceptions, never went further afield than the Apies river to defend their country.

What did you blow up?

I blew up the United Party in Brakpan. I gladly return to the hon. member for Yeoville. I feel the way they carry on against the Minister of Information is scandalous. The Minister of Information is an English-speaking person, a person who has gained much fame on our rugby fields, a person who held high the name of the Republic of South Africa and a man who has acquired a great reputation in the business world. Because he is not prepared to-day to play the game of members opposite, namely to plough under the Whites in the Republic, now they besmirch him at every opportunity that offers. I think it is unjust and deplorable to act in this manner against a Minister holding one of the most difficult portfolios in the Republic of South Africa at this very moment when we should like to see that information is disseminated in such a manner that it will penetrate to the world. I hope and trust it is the last time we shall hear such sneering remarks in this House in respect of the Minister.

We are now nearing the end of a very successful session, very successful for the National Party, but destructive for the United Party which achieved nothing. When we cast our minds back to the past, to the year 1960 and the preceding years, when we cast back our minds to the history of the Republic during the past 300 years, we can say to-day that the past six months and this Session, politically speaking, have been one of the most tranquil sessions. The United Party had nothing to attack us about, and the Government simply continued to govern the country well and properly. We are very thankful for the peace and tranquillity prevailing in our country. It is due to the National Party that has been governing the country for 16 years already. Now the question arises: Why do we have peace and tranquillity here? Why have we achieved peace and tranquillity in our country? Now I shall say that the main reason is because our State satisfies all the highest requirements for a modern Western state. In the first place, the Government has had good planning. It has built up a powerful Defence Force, to repulse any attack. We are grateful to be able to say that we have a powerful Police Force to maintain law and order. One of the most important is that we also can say that the administration of our country is free of corruption. In spite of the peace and tranquillity we have in the country, we find that the United Party is still busy sowing suspicion among our people by saying that there is no progress and that there has been no industrial development, and they are busy SDreading wild stories of isolation and of bad times and low wages here. I should like to put it this way, that I am convinced that basically there is nothing wrong with the Republic of South Africa. No country in the world can say to-day that it enjoys absolute security, and there are few countries, if any, which have such a potential for vigorous growth as the Republic has. In spite of our international unpopularity, especially with the overseas politicians and the unenlightened masses and the inciters and instigators and the publicity seekers, we have developed into a truly great nation and a jewel among the Western nations. We are a well-developed, highly civilized country. We have modern factories, we have modern institutions and we are a modern state. In our primary schools and high schools we are giving our children the best education, and as regards university training, probably only America can surpass us in this respect. As regards our White people, they surely are enjoying the highest standard of living in the world and our non-Whites compare very favourably with any non-Whites in the whole world. We are richly endowed with natural resources, much more so than any other country. We are producing at present 70 per cent of the gold in the Western world and 36 per cent of the total value of diamonds. We are in the unique position to-day that we have iron ore and coal in unlimited quantities in South Africa, and we are on the threshold of great developments in every possible respect. We have one of the most beautiful countries in the world, which has the greatest tourist potential, and the Minister of Information is attracting tourists to our country and we shall one day become the playground of the world, in spite of the Opposition. We also have people who are prepared to use their energy, their drive and their ambition here to preserve what we have achieved thus far. In spite of all the beautiful things we have in the Republic and which the National Party developed for us during the past 16 years, beacons on the road of the National Party, beacons of which all of us may be proud …

Not on the road of South Africa.

On the road of South Africa. The hon. member is not on that road. We are amazed when we look at the tremendous growth of the past period in the Republic of South Africa, when we have regard to the phenomenal growth which is reflected in our population increase, our colossal industrial development and the increase in our national income, when we have regard to our agricultural output, although the Opposition have had so much to say about it to-day, and when we have regard to the tremendous constitutional changes that have taken place. It fills us with gratitude and we are amazed at it. And while all these things have taken place under the policy of the National Party, we find that we are again on the point of pushing further ahead. We find that the Republic still has enormous possibilities. But if we cast our mind back to the past 300 years, when we think of the dissension there was between the White races in this self-same Republic of our’s …

Caused by you.

We cast our minds back on the insults we had to endure, the abuse and the misunderstandings that prevailed between me and my other countrymen, even the hon. member there, and when we think of the degree of suspicion and jealousy there is at the present day even, the hatred, and when we have regard to the disrespect of each other’s morals, when we have regard to all those things, the contempt for each other’s culture in the past, then we stand amazed this evening at what we have achieved during the past few years since we became a Republic, and hon. members opposite are similarly amazed. We can only regard it as a miracle that the two White groups are beginning to draw closer together.

Economically and technologically we have attained great achievements. But if I cherish one hope, like all White inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa, then it is that we, the White people should come closer to one another, that we should learn to understand one another still better, and that we should try to solve our problems together. There is one hope we cherish, and that is that we should build a nation which is woven together by one national allegiance and with one national pride. If there is one thing we should like to see, then it is that when our National Anthem is sung and played, all of us should get up and stand at attention and sing it at the top of our voices, not as we experience it to-day at our rugby matches or on other occasions where there is some indolence. If there is one thing we should like to see in this country, then it is that we should accept our flag when it flutters, and that we should look proudly upon it when it flutters in the air. But there is something else the Republic has brought us, and which the National Party is busy bringing about for us, and that is that we should build up a great nation with national pride. But hon. members opposite see we are busy building up a nation and now they want to break down the nation and refuse to cooperate. You are the people who say we are driving sections into kraals, but it is the United Party actually which is herding people together in kraals. I want to tell the United Party this evening that the game they are playing, where the Whites are fighting each other in midfield while the non-Whites are interested spectators watching us from the touch-line, must come to an end. That game will not get us anywhere.

Why do you not set an example?

We discontinued the game a long time ago, but the hon. members are continuing with it. They see we are bulding up a nation. We must eradicate all unnational elements root and all, those who are undermining us. Now there is a splendid opportunity in this Republic for us to be bound together in an alliance of unity so that nobody will ever be able to drive us apart as a White nation. There was a time in our national life when the Afrikaners were tom asunder and divided. They have found one another. They are bound together, and the members of the Opposition know to-day that the Afrikaners have rejected the United Party. There remains only a person like the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) whom they are keeping because he can get another seat for them, but for the rest he also means nothing to them. Now the English-speaking people are walking over to the Afrikaners, and we are busy building up a nation together …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Will the hon. member condemn in this House the conduct and the utterances of Mr. Eben Cuyler in Johannesburg?

It is unfortunate that Mr. Eben Cuyler said in the Johannesburg City Council what was said, those words used by him, but do not blame Mr. Eben Cuyler alone for those words. Is the hon. member prepared to condemn all the other unsavoury remarks also made by other people? Eben Cuyler is not the leader of the National Party of the Transvaal. The leader of the National Party in the Transvaal is our Prime Minister, and have you heard him making such remarks?

Yes.

Read the Transvaler of those days when he was its editor.

I want to say this to hon. members: We are a young country; we have tremendous possibilities; let us to-day act like worthy citizens and let us show the outside world that we are prepared to face up to our problems here in the Republic and to solve those problems ourselves. If we can stand together as a White nation, and show the world that we are not divided, our battle will have been won, and if we can manage to get the non-Whites to accept our policy—and the non-Whites are already to a large extent prepared to live with us in the Republic in the way the National Party has provided for them, we shall realize our ideal. For the nonWhites also know that there is only one way out and one future, and that is if they accept racial separation. They are prepared to do so, but it depends on us as the Whites who unfortunately are still fighting one another in every possible way, and who are splitting apart, in the same way that that hon. member wants to grasp at an utterance and a remark made by a city councillor of Johannesburg and inflate it into something colossal. I want to ask hon. members: Come let us accept the challenge issued to us by the world, and I tell you that if you fall in behind the National Party together with us, and accept our policy —because it is the only policy which offers a solution to our problems—then we shall come out on top. There is no other policy we can pursue. As we have reached this stage to-day, and as we have made tremendous progress and reached great heights, as we have procured accord among the Whites of the Republic to a great extent, as there is peace and quiet among the non-Whites, as we do not know strikes in this country, as the workers are contented, there are two things which are as plain as a pikestaff, and there are two things about which we can feel very happy, namely that the Republic has brought the Whites together in harmony. But the Republic has also brought us two very important persons, two persons who mean a tremendous lot to our country, and two persons who will still be accepted by the world as the leaders in statesmanship, two persons whom we shall accept here in South Africa one day, and for whom we shall erect great monuments—I see the hon. member is curious. I shall tell him that the two persons we have procured to get us out of this morass and conflict, are a Hendrik Verwoerd, the architect of racial peace, and a John Vorster, the guardian of racial peace in the Republic of South Africa, the multi-racial country.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) has made a speech here in the House to-day which will apparently be the speech which he will make to a meeting of his constituents when he returns to Brakpan after the Session. Of course, the hon. member was sensible enough to make the speech in this House because he was sure of an audience here but the hon. member will not be so sure of an audience when he returns to his constituency.

What did the hon. member say? Towards the end of his speech he told us about all the wonderful things the Nationalist Party is doing to-day to promote national unity and that it is the party which stands for the building up of a united South Africa. He asked us on this side of the House to assist them in that regard. The hon. member for Brakpan must not ask us to help him. The United Party has been trying for years, for generations and generations, to build up national unity between the Afrikaans and English-speaking people. We have been trying over the years to bring about a sound spirit of South Africanism between Afrikaans and English-speaking people. Has the hon. member for Brakpan forgotten the struggle which this party waged in the Provincial Council of his province in 1949 when the National Party tried to drive a wedge between Afrikaans and English-speaking people? Has the hon. member forgotten that it has been this party which has always objected to regiments, one for English-speaking people and one for Afrikaans-speaking people? Where was that hon. member and his South Africanism and the South Africanism of his party in 1940 when General Hertzog left that party because the National Party was not prepared to acknowledge the equal rights of English and Afrikaans-speaking people? Has the hon. member forgotten about that? And at the same time, the hon. the present Prime Minister wrote a leading article in which he said that it surprised him that a man like General Hertzog should have had to quarrel with and leave the National Party on a matter like the rights of the English-speaking people. Has the hon. member for Brakpan forgotten these things? No, we in South Africa would by this time have progressed much further along the road of South Africanism if hon. members opposite had been prepared 15 or 20 years ago to say what the hon. present Minister of Lands said a few weeks ago at Piketberg—that the National Party should become like the old South African Party was in 1920 and before that. The hon. member for Brakpan knows that there was the greatest exploitation of sentiment when the Nationalist Party insisted that what it wished to do was to bring about Afrikaner unity, but while they were trying to bring about Afrikaner unity, we on tljiis side of the House were fighting for South Africanism. We were already starting to forget the differences between Afrikaans- and English-speaking people. Now, at this late stage in the history of this country, the hon. member for Brakpan has made a plea for co-operation between English and Afrikaans-speaking people. But allow me to congratulate the hon. member in at last having seen the light, which this party has being seeing now for the past 50 years.

The hon. member said that he was proud of all the natural resources in this country. But of course! Who is not proud of what we in South Africa have at our disposal? Who is not proud of our diamonds? Who is not proud of our gold? And who is not proud of the human material we have at our disposal in this country? Was the point made by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) earlier in this debate not that we do not overlook these things or miss seeing them but that we want to see a Government in power which will have the necessary vision, courage and energy to develop these advantages for the good of our country? That is what we want. The hon. member for Brakpan knows that during this Session one motion after another has been moved by hon. members on this side of the House with the idea of improving the position of the ordinary man in South Africa. He says that they are proud of this Session. He says he is proud of the contribution which they have made during this Session. But can he honestly return to his constituency and tell his constituents there that there has never been a Government which has done more for the education of our young boys and girls than this Government has done?

Yes.

Is the hon. member really proud of what they have done in this respect? Are they proud of it in spite of the fact that there are still thousands of our young boys and girls who are not able to enjoy the benefit of that education? Can the hon. member return and say that he is proud of what they have done for the pensioners in this country? Does he not know of the thousands and thousands of people, both in his and in other hon. members’ constituencies, who are to-day living dangerously close to the breadline? Does he not know of the thousands and thousands who cannot come out on their incomes? The hon. member says he is proud of the assistance which they have obtained for the farmers. He says that the contention of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) is wrong and that our agriculture has never been in as favourable a position as it is to-day. Does the hon. member know of the White Paper which was published in connection with the Budget? He should see what appears on page two of that Paper in regard to the contribution which agriculture is making to the national income of our country. What is the position in that respect? In 1951-2 the contribution of our agricultural industry to the national income was 13.6 per cent; in 1956-7, it was 14.2 per cent but in 1962-3, it fell to 10.4 per cent. But then hon. members opposite say that we are wrong when we point out to them that agriculture is not enjoying its rightful share of the prosperity in this country! And that while we have here a document drawn up by the Government itself, a document which indicates that the contribution of agriculture to our national income has fallen sharply!

If things are going as well with the farming population of this country as hon. members contend, why is it then that every year proves that hundreds of farmers are not able to make a living on the land? If it is true that our farming position is so sound, they ought to stay on the land and not move to the cities. Why, if the position is so sound, is it necessary for us to make so many loans to the farmers each year with the purpose of keeping them on the land? The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) has said that we do not know what we are talking about. He said that only a small number of loans were issued and that the farmers were not in difficulty at all. The farmers are able to pay all their debts or so he has told us. Apparently he is quite satisfied in regard to the debts which the farmers have had to incur because, he said, there is nothing wrong with that. But let us also look at the report from which he quoted, the report of the State Advances Recoveries Office. Let us look at page 9 and see what the position is in regard to the recovery of loans. On 31 March 1960 the total number of loans issued by the State to assist farmers numbered 42,271 and the amount in this regard was R23,500,000. On 31 March 1961 the number of loans had fallen while the amount involved had risen to R33,000,000. As at 31 March 1963 the number of loans had dropped further—by more than 1,000 since 31.3.1960 —but the amount involved had risen to R37,000,000.

And what does that prove?

It only proves one thing and that is that a smaller number of farmers are to-day compelled to rely on more assistance from the State Advances Recoveries Office.

Compare land prices during those various periods and see how prices have risen.

The hon. member knows that State Advances does not assist a man to purchase land. That is the function of the Land and Agricultural Bank. State Advances are there to assist people who are already in difficulty. We find that over this three-year period there has been an increase in the amount of these loans from R23,000,000 to R37,000,000, an increase of R14,000,000 in the amount loaned to farmers.

But let us also look at page 15 of the latest report of the Land and Agricultural Bank, and more specifically at the table dealing with medium-term loans made available to farmers. As at 31 December 1962 the capital amount owing was R9,000,000. One year later, this amount was R7,000,000. Arrear interest amounted to almost R500,000 in comparison with R 1,600,000 in the next year. These figures show that the arrear interest and capital amounted to 15.449 per cent in 1962 and to 21.566 per cent at the end of 1963.

The two amounts are taken together. That does not necessarily mean an increase.

The point is not whether they are or are not taken together. The point is that in 1962 it was 15.499 per cent and in the next year it was 21.566 per cent. Does the hon. member want to tell me that this is an improvement?

You are juggling with the figures.

The hon. member says that I am juggling with the figures. Never in the history of our country have we had a position such as this in which so much money has been made available by the Land and Agricultural Bank in order to assist the farmers.

What is wrong with that?

This is the only salvation of these people and this is so because the Government refused to give its attention to the crux of the problem. That is the reason. The hon. member knows that the drought assistance which is voted on the Estimates each year will not assist the farmers out of their difficulties. This is merely piece-work, piecework which the Government will be compelled to do every year because it refused, definitely refuses to recognize the fundamental difficulties of the farmers.

It is an accomplished fact to my mind and as clear as daylight that the farmers in our country are not sharing in our country’s prosperity. Moreover, we find nothing in these Estimates to generate confidence in us as far as the future of agriculture in our country is concerned. As far as I am concerned, it is clear that the farming population of our country is being treated shabbily by the Government, except in regard to the piecework which is done, as is the case in connection with drought assistance. It is clear to my mind that the farming population of South Africa are not being protected by this Government. What do the farmers of our country ask for? They only ask for a few things. They ask that they be given the chance to make a reasonable living. Just as the Government is prepared to admit that the income of the salaried man and of the wage-earner must be increased from time to time, so the farmer also feels that from time to time he should be enabled to enjoy a higher standard of living. The fact is that the farming industry is that branch of our economy which still produces the lowest dividend. But what do we find now? We find that as soon as we encourage our farmers to produce more and they do so—it is due to the farmers of South Africa that we can boast to-day of the fantastic volume of production which has been achieved over the past ten to 15 years—prices to the farmer are reduced. As soon as he produces well and surpluses arise, there is only one way out and that is to reduce the prices paid to the farmer. Because of this fact the farmer is forced to leave his industry. That is what is happening in our dairy industry to our cream and milk farmers. When this happens, we find that shortages arise, and as soon as shortages arise, prices are raised slightly.

But that is what you are always asking for.

If the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) had only listened to the theme of the speeches that have been made on this side of the House for the past six years he would know that we ask for stability, stability in the agricultural industry; we do not want a continual fluctuation in prices. We ask for stability so that the farmer can be assured of a reasonable entrepreneur’s wage plus production costs. That is all we ask for. The solution to this does not lie in reducing the prices at one stage and then raising them at the next as soon as a little difficulty is experienced. Besides the fact that we do not satisfy the farmer thereby there is also the fact that by doing this we dissatisfy another group—the consumers, simply because of the fact that this Government refuses to follow a policy which aims at stability for the producer as well as the consumer.

Under circumstances such as this, no farmer, whether he is a stock farmer or a crop farmer, or whatever the case may be, can look forward to a rosy future. And yet the whole world, including our own people in this country, needs more food. We ought not to find ourselves saddled with surpluses when there are many thousands of mouths that have to be fed. There are millions and millions of people needing food and clothing every day. I am convinced of the fact that with a view to the population explosion which the world is heading for, not fewer but more farmers will be needed to produce the necessary food. Here I am reminded of a report by the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services which was tabled a year or two ago and in which he pointed out that we would experience a food catastrophe if we did not ensure that we had a sufficient number of farmers for the future, farmers who could produce the food for the increasing population of the world.

But what I cannot understand is that hon. members cannot appreciate this fact. Why then are they prepared to tackle a scheme like the Orange River scheme? It is the intention of the Government to enable about 10,000 farmers to keep going by means of this scheme. If they do not admit that more farmers are necessary, then they must say that this scheme is a white elephant. But about 2,400 farmers are leaving the land every year. As a result of the circumstances prevailing today, agricultural leaders are worried about the future. Indeed, they see no future because they realize that this Government cannot plan for the future. And so the farmer does not know when he will be forced off the land because of surpluses and low prices. That is why I find that farmers are now advocating the establishment of a central planning board. Why should a central planning board of this nature be established? Why is it that the farmers ask for this sort of thing? It is because they feel that something must be done to frame projects for the future, such as the various commodities to be produced, what the food requirements of our country will be and so forth. Then it will no longer be necessary for us to operate in this erratic way; we will then not find ourselves saddled with surpluses at one stage and with shortages at the next. It is for this reason that the farmers ask for a planning board of this nature—because they have no confidence in the fast and loose agricultural policy being followed in this country. And in this respect the farmers are quite right. We ask the Government whether it intends complying with this request of the farming community. Is it going to comply with this request so that we can have better planning for the future and, because of this fact, greater confidence in the future? No farmer can continue if he has to contend with increased prices at one stage and decreased prices at the next. This undermines confidence in the industry. The farmers ask for the establishment of a central planning body of this nature and we want to know what the Government’s intentions in this regard are. The Government ought to say whether it has something of this nature in mind in order by so doing to make the farmers feel more confident in the knowledge that their future will be in good hands. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister of Finance, after consultation with the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and with the hon. the Minister Agricultural Technical Services …

Where are they?

… will at least reply to this request. Then we will know whether we can create greater confidence in our agricultural industry for the future.

In the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) who has just resumed his seat blamed the National Party for the fact that while they were fighting for a larger South Africanism, we were fighting for Afrikaner unity. He referred to the struggle of 50 years ago. But what the hon. member forgets is that when the National Party 50 years ago called for Afrikaner unity, his party found it impossible even to accept the principle of South Africa first. But now they imagine that they are the advocates of a wider South Africanism. Where were they when the National Party, during the past 50 years, were busy laying the foundations for such a wider South Africanism? Where were they when we fought for the principle of remaining neutral in a war and for the principle of our independence? Then that party would have nothing to do with those things! When we fought for symbols to represent our South Africanism, that party was opposed to it. Where were they in the battle for the flag? Where were they when we fought for our own South African citizenship? No, it was always too much for that party that we should have our own flag. Therefore we still had to have the flag of another country as well. We could not be citizens of our own country alone. No, we also had to be citizens of another country. Even a few years ago when we wanted to abolish appeals to the Privy Council, they were not in favour of that. And what happened when we fought for the principle of having our own Head of State? Then they were not in favour of that either. The fact is that when this party fought to lay the foundations for a larger South Africanism, that party was not in favour of it. But now that we have laid these foundations, now that we have become a Republic and the struggle is past, now that we have various symbols to give expression to our wider South Africanism, that party opposite contends that it pleaded for it! But these things were made possible only by the foundations laid throughout the years by the National Party.

The hon. member pleaded for the farmers. The hon. member is a farmer himself, a progressive farmer in one of our Karoo districts. But with the policy he has propounded here to-day he will not be able to gain a seat in the Karoo. That is why he represents an urban constituency! He says the farmer is without protection to-day, and he says it is the farmer who is responsible for the fantastic production of our factories. In other words, therefore, things are going well. I agree that our industries are also dependent on the farmers, but the farmers are dependent on the industries too. I can wholeheartedly support the principle he stated here, and I shall tell him why I support him.

It is interesting to note that in the years 1956-7 agricultural production amounted to R895,000,000, of which R314,000,000 or 41 per cent was bought by our factories. That was the position even in those years. To-day I am convinced that this percentage is much higher. But when I say that our farmers are dependent on the purchases made by industry, I am also prepared to state the opposite, namely that the industries need the farmers because of the total purchases of R842,000,000 by the farmers in that year, R 125,000,000 in respect of purchases from our industries. I therefore quite agree when it is said that the industries and the farmers mutually help each other. That is also why we can say that the tremendous industrial expansion we have today also benefits the farmer, and where steps are taken to stimulate industry, agriculture is also stimulated indirectly and the farmers also derive benefit from it.

But the hon. member says things are going so badly with the farmers that agriculture contributed only 10 per cent to our national income. But the contribution to our national income is surely not the only yardstick by which progress can be measured. If we look at the volume of production, we find that while the contribution made by agriculture to our national income from 1919 to 1961 decreased from 25 per cent to 11 per cent, the production of agriculture increased in value from R101,000,000 to R535,000,000—in other words, it increased five-fold. If one calculates that as a percentage of the national income, one will also find that the contribution made by mining in those years was also higher than it is now. But our mining production has also increased in volume. The decrease in the percentage contribution to our national income is particularly to be ascribed to the development of our industries. Surely it is essential that there should be industries. We cannot remain merely an agricultural country. Nor can we remain merely a mining country or produce only raw materials. And thanks to the policy of the Nationalist Government we are not to-day an agricultural country only, or a country which just produces raw materials from its mines. As the result of the protective tariffs the Nationalist Government introduced in 1924, our industries started developing. Iscor was established and it was followed by one industry after another. Since then it has always been the policy of this Government to stimulate industrial development, and with the increasing industrial production the percentage contributed to our national income by agriculture and mining decreased. But that does not mean that things are going so much worse with agriculture or the miningindustry. On the contrary, even in the ten years up to 1961, our agricultural production increased by 60 per cent. Even last year it still increased by 5 per cent. Therefore it cannot be said that there is a standstill in the agricultural sector; on the contrary, there is progress. It is as the result of the policy of the Nationalist Government over the years of stimulating industrial development that there has been a shift of population from the platteland to the cities. It is a natural process which has inevitably followed on the industrial expansion. That happens everywhere in the world where there is industrial development, and also in this country. I am not sure of the percentage, but I think that whereas in 1910 about 60 per cent of the White population still lived on the platteland, to-day it is less than 20 per cent. The growth of the cities has resulted in that. It is also this process which has brought about the decrease in the number of people engaged in the agricultural sector of our economy.

I want to come back to the figure the hon. member quoted in regard to the number of farmers who leave the rural areas every year. He said it was a figure I had mentioned, but I want to point out how wrongly it is being interpreted. It is now said that it is our policy to force the farmers off the land. The fact is that the number of farmers have decreased. There has not been a decrease only during the last year or two. Here I have the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics. That is where I got the figures which are being quoted, and it shows that in 1936 there were 181,000 active White farmers, and in 1946 there were only 167,000, and in 1951 there were 145,000, and in 1960 there were 117,000. But if we analyse the figures for industry, we see that in 1936 there were 90,000 Whites in the industrial sector, precisely half the number in the agricultural sector, but in 1960 that increased to 230,000, whereas in agriculture there were 117,000. Where there was therefore a decrease in the number of farmers, there was a very large increase in the number of Whites in industry, and it is in that regard that I mentioned the figures which were quoted here. I want to mention this because it was referred to once again. I pointed that out on the occasion of a function in Paarl. After I pointed out how there was an increase in the production in the industrial sector, I said—

Then I gave the reasons for this and said, inter alia—

That is what I said in this connection. This is now being interpreted as if it is our policy that it must happen and that we favour it.

There are other reasons for it also. We find that this smaller number of farmers still achieved an increased production. There are other reasons, such as mechanization and better technical methods, scientific research, fertilizers and other technical reasons, why fewer farmers have achieved this greater production; and things are not going so badly with the farmers. The mere fact that there is such a rise in land prices is one of the indications that things cannot be going so badly, and many of the people who buy land are not people outside the agricultural sector, but people within that sector. But when the hon. member for Yeoville tried to indicate how badly things were going for the farmers, he advised us to look at Germany where the small farms were reduced by 300,000, and 20 per cent of the area was enlarged. Steps were taken here also to prevent the cutting up of farms, and here also our Minister of Agriculture is in favour of economic units, but that is one of the very things which result in the decline in the number of farmers. The fact that units are enlarged results in there being fewer farmers. The hon. member for Yeoville blames us for the fact that the number of farmers is decreasing, but one of the solutions he suggests to improve the position of the farmers has the very result that their numbers decrease.

Another objection the hon. member has is that we do not do enough for the people in the rural areas. He says that one of the ways in which the position has improved in other countries is by decentralization of industry and by diversification of the economic activities in the rural areas. He says we must have more decentralization, but the moment we take steps to decentralize they say we want to take industries away from the Rand. He even went so far as to say: “The Government has no policy for a bold and imaginative industrial development of South Africa except in border areas”. All those hon. members who say that have not the least idea of what is going on on the Rand. In no other centre is there such fast industrial expansion as on the Central Rand. No other place in South Africa can compare with it. It is our policy to decentralize, and even the hon. member for Yeoville has now advocated it, but when it comes to putting it into practice he says we want to harm the Rand. When we make an analysis of the industrial expansion of 1963, we see that 55 per cent of the industries which needed import permits, i.e. mainly new industries, were in the Southern Transvaal, and of that 55 per cent, 82 per cent was on the Central Rand. That proves what expansion there was, but the hon. member says we want to kill the Central Rand by decentralization.

But we need not stop there. We can go further. He referred to the West Rand and said things were difficult there. He said the industrial production on the West Rand was R60,000,000, and on the Central Rand it is R600,000,000 and on the East Rand it was R200,000,000, but that is meaningless because mining production is not included in those figures. To say that that is the income of those areas is a half-truth. The fact is that there is more industrial concentration on the East Rand. They have been at it longer than on the West Rand. There are more industries, but that does not mean to say that there is no progress. On the contrary. He refers to Randfontein and Roodepoort and Krugersdorp, but there is no stagnation there either. I have the latest building figures for those areas. If we analyse them, we see that in Krugersdorp in 1963 building plans were approved amounting to over R2,000,000, including industries. Four new industries were established and there were 30 extensions only last year. The year before there were three new industries and 52 extensions. In the first three months of this year it was almost R 1,000,000. In Randfontein we find the same expansion. I also have the figures for Roodepoort here. Last year there was an increase of over R3,000,000 in Roodepoort. The hon. member for Yeoville asked how that compared with Johannesburg and the East Rand. In Johannesburg building plans amounting to R7,700,000 were approved. That was just for the three months. The expansion for Johannesburg itself was R30,000,000, and the industrial section of it amounted to R6,700,000. Is that stagnation? The industrial plans approved for Johannesburg amounted to 137. Look at Germiston. There plans amounting to R6,500,000 were approved, including nine new industries, but I do not want to deal with this further. I think I have proved it convincingly. I see in the latest issue of the West Rand Times of April: “Housing shortage now critical at all points along the West Rand”. Therefore there is no stagnation. [Interjections.] It is clear that South Africa is now experiencing its longest continuous period of economic growth, and there are no signs of it declining; rather, there is every indication that it will still continue. Here again, I can refer to the latest analysis. I refer to a return dated 20 May. When we compare the total industrial production with that of the first three months of last year, we find that there was an increase of 14.8 per cent on an average. We find that in sectors like paper and paper products there is an increase of 20 per cent; the production of petrol from coal, 80 per cent; non-ferrous mineral products, 26 per cent; metal products, 17 per cent: electrical machinery, 23 per cent. That shows what tremendous activity there has been in the industrial sector. But it is not only in that sector. If we compare the building plans approved during the first three months with he corresponding period last year, we see that in regard to dwelling-houses there is an increase of 45 per cent and in regard to flats of 80 per cent, and in regard to business buildings and factories there is an increase of 108 per cent. The average total increase over last year is 69 per cent. There are other indications that the same expansion is still in progress. Just in April, in secondary industry, 155 new companies were registered, with a capital amounting to R900,000, and the authorized capital of 25 companies was increased by a total of R3,600,000. That gives an indication of what is still in progress. We are having unprecedented economic expansion. Small wonder that only last week I still read—

When we compare our industrial expansion with that of other countries, it is a striking comparison. That of Italy, from 1953 until now, has increased by 11 per cent, and that of France has increased by 6 per cent, but ours has increased by 14 per cent over the past year. That is an indication of how strong our economy is. No wonder that even the London Financial Times recently said—

That is an indication that South Africa is complying with the basic requirements. South African can supply the capital it needs; we have the natural resources, we have the technology and we have the initiative, but apart from that we have a Government which ensures industrial peace and stability.

I can understand the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs rising and diverting the debate from a discussion on the Government’s shortcomings in agricultural administration. A strange feature of the debate has been that, although for the last four hours discussion has been directed at agricultural matters and that comment has been made on the fact that the agricultural population has not had its fair share in the current upsurge of the economy, neither of the two Ministers of Agriculture have been present in the House and no reason or excuse has been given for their absence. So I can understand the hon. the Deputy Minister rising and diverting the discussion.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, in trying to reply to some of the arguments advanced from this side of the House as to the depopulation of the rural areas, has chosen to say that it is a normal and natural phenomenon. I certainly agree with him that population drifts from country to town are natural phenomena in all countries in which industrial development is forging ahead. If that were the only answer here it would apply to all sections of the population. What the hon. the Deputy Minister did not explain to us was why it was taking place only in regard to the one race and not in regard to the other groups. Why is it the White population which is drifting to the town and not the non-White population? Why is the White population drifting away from the rural areas whereas the non-White population is drifting in? That is the criticism which has been raised from this side of the House to which no answer has been given.

Although the hon. the Deputy Minister entered into the economic and industrial field in this debate I found it strange that he disregarded entirely the arguments advanced by my hon. colleague the member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). The hon. member for Jeppes dealt with some of the aspects of this matter. He pointed out in particular that decentralization was not taking place in accordance with normal economic trends. He indicated that decentralization was being carried out for political ends and not for economic ends. In doing so, he said, we had reached the stage where there was a theoretical de-urbanization of the Bantu in the country whereas in practice the very opposite was taking place. None of those aspects were dealt with by the hon. the Deputy Minister as one would have expected him to do.

I want to deal, however, with a different phase of administrative deficiencies on the part of the Government. According to the latest report of the Controller and Auditor-General 18 commissions of inquiry and 28 special departmental committees were actively engaged during 1962-3 in aiding or advising the Government how to set about its business of administering the country. These bodies were not minor or insignificant bodies of little consequence because the cost involved to the public purse up to 31 March 1963 was nearly R640,000. That was more than a year ago. Since that time, as everybody knows, a number of new commissions and new committees have been added to the list. All in all they must make quite a formidable list of extraordinary aids and in some cases, such as the abortive Press Commission, also costly aids, which have been set up by this Government to smoothe out the many snags both administratively and economically that have come into being during the five years of executive rule under the present hon. Prime Minister. Such an array of ad hoc aids to Government is evidence, I believe, not of success but rather of failure in the exercise of sound public administration. That, I believe, is the true significance of this large-scale effort on the part of the Government to seek advice in administering the country. What alarms me is not so much the number of commissions or committees appointed by the Government or the amount which has been defrayed from the public purse in meeting the direct costs of these extraordinary aids to administration, but the amount of waste that is involved in the process. A list of the reports of bodies of this kind that have been shelved by the Government in the last few years, either temporarily or for all time, must by now also have reached quite formidable proportions. To give an accurate summary in that regard could involve far more time than I can devote to that exercise.

The two most recent reports, i.e. the hefty Odendaal Report on South West Africa and the lamentable Press Commission Report, clearly come within that category. The waste of time, the waste of energy and the waste of words involved in the preparation and the compilation of those two reports alone must be quite staggering in proportion to the results achieved. As I have indicated it is not so much the waste of money but this other waste which I find quite alarming. All this misdirection of man hours, if not in every case manpower, and all this waste of energy and effort has occurred at the very time when industry and business in general are in danger of slowing down from want of a sufficiency of human endeavour and human skill. It has also taken place at a time when the Public Service itself is desperately short of personnel.

Whether the Government’s intense and costly, if not extravagant, planning at the present time on the military war front is well directed or not, I certainly do not profess to know. But I do know this that the Government would do well to plan a war against waste in public administration. One of the noticeable features of the current parliamentary Session has been that throughout the whole of the Session members on this side of the House have drawn attention to inefficiency and sometimes to incompetence in the railway administration, in health services, in postal and radio services, in police and defence operations and in the administration of several other Departments such as the Labour Department and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. It is not necessary for me to try to recapitulate all the incidences referred to from this side of the House during Committee of Supply or by means of questions to Ministers.

I would remind the hon. the Minister of Finance that even his Department was subject to criticism in that regard. The administration in an important branch of his Department has also been openly criticized in the public Press and the disturbing circumstances referred to in the Press and in this House are still unresolved.

I believe that one of the most effective ways of waging war against administrative waste, whether that waste be due to extravagance or inefficiency or both, is for the hon. the Minister of Finance to budget for a deficit. Had the hon. the Minister been willing to make that change from his present budgetary habit and had he for the current year presented the House with a deficit budget I think he would have revealed both initiative and enterprise, something which is very necessary at this stage. Had he done that himself, he might also have inspired initiative and enterprise in all others concerned in public administration. But the budgetry habits of the Minister have apparently become too deeply rooted to make such a change. The Minister’s budget surplus on Revenue Account for the current year, 1964-5, is likely to be a substantial one once again.

I do not want to repeat the argument which was used yesterday that this has been an extraordinary Session in two directions, firstly, in that the Minister was out with his budgeting to such an extent in regard to his surplus for the last year, i.e. 1963-4, that he had to revise it and bring it up by something like another 50 per cent. Secondly, he also took the extraordinary course during the current year of revising revenue estimates for 1964-5 within a matter of weeks after having delivered his Budget speech on 16 March this year. Needless to say, the revision was in an upward direction—more tax revenue for 1964-5, not less. I am not at the present moment concerned with details but with the fact that surplus budgeting tends to aggravate and not to lessen waste. It provides the Government wih money for jam, as the saying goes. Consequently, most taxpayers to-day will appreciate the words of A. P. Herbert who said—

He must have known this Government!

Well, if he had, I think he could have improved on this! In any event, that sets out precisely how the taxpaying public in this country feel about the situation which has developed. That is why I say that the time has obviously come where if you are going to wage war against waste, the way in which this should start is for the Minister to change his budgetary habits and to budget for a deficit.

Meanwhile gold and foreign reserves have continued to pile up and the danger of inflation draws nearer almost every day. Surplus budgeting does not lessen this danger of inflation but, if anything, it accentuates the danger because the whole process is simply one of transferring spending power from the private to the public sector of our economy. I do not want to develop this argument now, because it was discussed yesterday, but I think the doggerel of A. P. Herbert does go to show how necessary it is to bear in mind that once the money goes to the Government, “nobody will see the stuff again”.

Under these circumstances it seems to me to be necessary to reiterate once again that the case the hon. the Minister has put up ever since 1960, and rejected more than once during the current Session, for retaining the arbitrary and artificial devices of import and exchange control has grown very thin indeed. May I in this connection remind the Minister of the words of Mr. Peter Runge, president of the Federation of British Industries who visited this country some time last year. His name, incidentally, appears in Her Majesty the Queen’s honour list yesterday.

So does the name of Billy Butlin.

I am not at present concerned with Mr. Billy Butlin although I might also quote him later. At present I wish to quote for the benefit of the hon. the Minister what Mr. Peter Runge said because this is germane to what we are discussing. During his visit to South Africa, this is what he had to say about import control—

I quote this because it does emphasize the fact that to prolong this artificial method of control, or rather the case for prolonging it, is growing very thin indeed. The same applies to the continued use of exchange control. In that regard the present situation of control shows that it has now become a matter of being “cent wise and rand foolish”. This very day we dealt with a provision in the Finance Bill giving the Government power to borrow money to regulate the internal monetary conditions. To take these powers might be a novel manoeuver on the part of the Government but it certainly does not surprise me that the Minister is now taking special powers to borrow internally for the specific purpose of lending abroad. As I say, this step may be a necessary step for purposes of the Government particularly as the loan account during the current year is likely to be very much over-endowed, to put it midly, with too much money. It will not only have to accommodate a substantial portion of the surplus of nearly R 130,000,000, but in addition it has to absorb other trust funds which will come into the hands of the Government during the year. I do not intend giving any figures in this respect, but it does seem to me that, as I already put it, the loan account during the current year is going to be over-endowed with cash. I can see therefore that this method of trying to regulate internal monetary conditions has now become a necessity. But the necessity for this step is also clear evidence that the case which the Minister tries to make for the continued application of exchange control has now virtually come to an end. The State is now assuming for itself the right to invest abroad whilst that right is denied to private enterprise and private capital. Now, I know the hon. the Minister will say that he wants to control the outflow of money and direct it for the specific purpose, as he says, of regulating internal monetary conditions. But here again he wants to do it by artificial and arbitrary methods instead of leaving it to private enterprise. Efforts of this nature usually also lead to administrative waste.

I started off by saying that the system of exchange control had now reached a stage where it was cent wise and rand foolish. If ever evidence was needed in this regard, it is to be found in the restrictions on travel allowances which the Minister imposed during the current Session by cutting down to R20 the amount which may be taken out of the country in Reserve Bank notes. In this connection I want to quote the following Press comment which appeared as recently as 11 June—

Sir, surely this is not the best way to advertise South Africa. It shows that the need for this system of control has become trivial, if we can come down to a stage where a statement of this kind is made in the Press, i.e. that the banks will no longer accept our bank notes because the Reserve Bank will not accept notes repatriated from oveseas. But quite apart from the control aspect, it is a very seious statement to have been made in the Press and I hope that if this statement does not set the position out correctly, the Minister will make a statement saying precisely what the position is, because let me say again that it is a strange way of advertising South Africa.

I do not intend to follow the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) very far in what he said.

You cannot.

Try it and surprise us all.

I am quite prepared to follow up what was said by the hon. member but let me add that there are certain matters in connection with which there are some hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), who will not be able to follow up what I say. I am certain of that. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) complained about the lage number of commissions appointed and about the waste of money apparently involved in this regard. It is a strange thing to my mind that during this Session—I do not think that my memory is playing me false in this connection—repeated requests were made by hon. members opposite for the appointment of certain commissions. Less than a week ago the Opposition complained that no commission had been appointed to investigate the actions of the police in the Bultfontein case! Unless I am mistaken, the request was also forthcoming from hon. members opposite that a commission of inquiry be appointed to inquire into the Broederbond. I can also mention a number of other commissions which were asked for by hon. members opposite. But now this hon. member has told us that a great deal of money is wasted by the appointment of these commissions. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) would have said if he had been here this afternoon?

He would have said “boerehater”!

No, he would have said: “Stupid official” (dom amptenaar). The hon. member also said that the danger of inflation was increasing by the day. Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss yesterday’s debate because you have already prevented me from referring to a speech that was made yesterday. But we remember that yesterday, and today as well, one speaker after the other on the other side stood up and asked that the surplus should be shared out. They said that the argument of the hon. the Minister that this would encourage inflation did not hold water. When they made this suggestion they gave no thought to the danger of inflation. But the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has told us here to-day that the danger of inflation is increasing by the day. To his way of thinking, even the fact that, in his opinion, too much has been voted to Loan Account, holds the danger of inflation. The hon. member for Cradock would also have made an interjection in this regard! The hon. member quoted a certain Mr. Herbert as saying that once the Government got its hands on this money, we would never see it again. Does the hon. member believe that? Does the hon. member believe that no benefit is obtained from capital payments? Does the hon. member believe that when the Government spends money, whether on pensions or the development of social services, no one ever sees that money again?

Mr. Speaker, I do not find it too difficult to reply to the arguments of the hon. member. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories is now silent. I should have liked to have followed up the hon. member further in his arguments but he talked so much nonsense that it is not necessary for me to devote more time to him.

I want to come to what was said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher). He told us at the start of his speech what the hon. the Minister of Lands had apparently said. Mr. Speaker, it was then that I became a trifle disturbed. We have had good leaders on the National Party side over the years, but as soon as our leaders have left politics, the United Party have appropriated those leaders and have then told the public that their policy is based on the policy of our retired leaders. They appropriated General Hertzog in this way. Later, when the late Mr. Strijdom was Prime Minister, they said that Dr. Malan was the right man. Now that Mr. Strijdom is no longer here they say that in many respects they are following the policy of the late Mr. Strijdom.

Who ever said that?

Is it necessary for me to prove this to the hon. member from Hansard? They have attacked us here time and time again and have said that they are following a policy laid down by the late Mr. Strijdom. But that is not all; I predict that one of these days they will also appropriate Minister Sauer. Mr. Sauer became ill the other day; he has in the meantime become engaged and married and we are expecting him to retire as Minister. I predict that one of these days they will also appropriate him as being one of the people on whose policy their policy is based.

He appropriated the old South African Party policy.

There we have it; they are already appropriating him; they will also want to take him away from us. Mr. Speaker, we will move heaven and earth to see that they do not try to appropriate the policy of Dr. Verwoerd. I do not think that they will ever succeed in doing that.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) told us in the first instance how the farmers’ debts with the Land Bank have increased and he then said that this great burden of debt of the farmers with the Land Bank proved how badly things were going with the farmers. If the hon. member had mentioned the indebtedness of the farmers to the Farmers’ Assistance Board or to State Advances, he could possibly have proved something. Is the hon. member aware of the fact that money which is advanced to the farmers by the Land Bank is advanced against very good security? Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the Land Bank only advances up to 80 per cent of that security on its own valuation? Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the farmers are now making far more use of the Land Bank for financing purposes than ever before? No, the hon. member has proved absolutely nothing. There are adequate funds available in the Land Bank to-day and the farmers are able to enjoy financing facilities there on a far sounder basis than they can enjoy those same facilities in the private sector or with commercial banks. Because the farmers make use of the facilities, the hon. member tries to suggest that this is a proof that the farmers are bankrupt.

I did not put it in that way.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) never knows what he has said after he has said it. He makes a number of irresponsible statements here and when one reminds him of them at a later stage he always says very piously that that was not what he said.

Do you contend that things are going well with the farmers?

There are farmers who are in difficulty. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has already made his speech. I am dealing now with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West). If I have the opportunity at a later stage I shall do him the honour of addressing myself to him, although I do not think that one should do so on a Saturday afternoon. There is another proof which the hon. member tried to give us. He referred here to the White Paper issued by the hon. the Minister when he made his Budget statement. He referred us to page 2 and asked us whether we had noticed from this White Paper how badly things were going with the farmers; whether we had noticed that the White Paper stated that the farmers were not receiving their rightful share of the prosperity of the country. He said, moreover, that in 1951-2 agriculture’s share of the national income was 13.6 per cent and that it had risen to 14.2 per cent in 1957. He said: “Just imagine! It is now only 10.4 per cent.” That was his argument. I want to ask him whether he has noticed that commerce’s share of the national income in 1951 was 14.8 per cent; that it fell in 1956-7 to 13.6 per cent and that in 1963 it was 12.8 per cent? Therefore, we find the same falling tendency in this regard as is the case in connection with farming but has anyone ever said that things are going so badly with commerce that the Government should step in and subsidize commerce and start granting pensions? Is commerce just as bankrupt? The hon. member only quoted figures in connection with agriculture because he noticed that they showed a falling tendency. But I want to ask the hon. member whether he has noticed that during this period, in 1951-2, the gross national income was only about R4,000,000,000, while in 1957 it amounted to R5,000,000,000? And has he noticed that it now stands between R6,000,000,000 and R7,000,000,000? Or should I rather give him the actual total figures? Perhaps it is not even necessary to give them to him because he has all the figures before him. What is of importance is this: When the contribution of agriculture, forestry and fisheries to the gross national income was 13.6 per cent, this contribution amounted to only R352,000,000 but has he noticed that in 1963, when their contribution only formed 10.4 per cent of the national income, the figure was R568,000,000? Did the hon. member also notice that the income from factories was only R618,000,000 in 1951-2 and that in 1963 it was R 1,399,000,000? This supports the argument which I have advanced here previously—that if our factories had not expanded to such a great extent, the percentage contribution of agriculture to our national income would have been far more favourable than he tries to make it out to be here. But, Mr. Speaker, it does not help to explain all those things to those hon. members because they are not interested. They are trying to win the votes of a small number of farmers who find themselves in difficulty, mainly as a result of climatic conditions. They are trying to make political capital out of the difficulties of those farmers. Hon. members are trying to step into the breach for those farmers. Who are the members who have made a plea for the farmers here? Do they represent rural constituencies? No, the hon. members who have made speeches here in support of the famers are members like the hon. members for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) and Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Connan).

And Orange Grove.

No, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) cannot get away from the Broadcasting Corporation and the Post Office! I do not think that he will venture into the sphere of fanning. Hon. members opposite have lost all contact with agriculture and with the farmers because the farmers have rejected them. We have seen how the United Party have gradually had to leave the platteland.

They were chased away.

Yes, they were chased away because of their past record. Sir, the memories of the voters are not that short. The voters have not forgotten their record. They still remember very well the prices they obtained for their products when the United Party was in Government. They still well remember that slaughter stock were commandeered and that when we wanted to sell our stock on the open market one of their officials approached us, clad in a varigated coat, and simply told us: “We are taking your stock to the controlled market”. The farmers well remember the price basis that was fixed by the United Party Government at the time. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Orange Grove has no idea of what a tractor cost at that time. I wonder whether he knows that one could not obtain a tractor in those days. No, hon. members of the Opposition think that the memories of the voters are just as short as theirs are.

I think that I have devoted sufficient time to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West). I want now to come to the hon. member for Yeoville who spoke this morning. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition told the hon. the Minister of Justice the other day that he could see by the expression on his face that he was amused when the Bultfontein case was being discussed here. Now, I cannot claim to be able to read people’s thoughts by their expressions but, Mr. Speaker, if you had looked at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this morning you would have seen a rather anxious expression on his face when the hon. member for Yeoville started discussing agricultural matters. I have never seen anyone act as recklessly as the hon. member for Yeoville did this morning. One sympathizes with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Over the years that I have been a member of this House I have noticed that originally he himself dealt with agricultural matters. Of course, he could not continue to do so and he then appointed the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) to handle agricultural matters. He also got the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) to handle agricultural matters for him occasionally. Then the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) became a member of this House and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pinned his hopes on him. The hon. member for East London (City) was also the main speaker on the other side on agricultural matters on one occasion but after that they never ever gave him the opportunity of handling this subject again. Since that time the hon. member for Gardens has handled agricultural matters. What have we had from him? Every now and again, the hon. member moves a motion which is diametrically opposed to the interests of co-operatives, and the cooperatives still feel hurt in this regard.

He is going to lose his job.

No, he will not lose it; he has already lost it because the hon. member for Yeoville has acted to-day as the main speaker on agricultural matters on the other side. Amongst other things the hon. member told us that this Government has only taken a number of negative steps in regard to agriculture and that one of those negative steps is that we loan money to farmers on a cheap basis with the result that they incur a great deal of debt, and that we then sell them out.

Shameful.

It is not as shameful as it is ridiculous and stupid. Because sufficient money is made available by the Land Bank to assist the farmers and because they lend this money to farmers at a very low rate of interest, it is said that we enable the farmers to incur heavy debts and that we then sell them out. Strangely enough, shortly after the hon. member said this, the hon. member for East London (City) stood up and gave us an analysis of the rates of interest of the Land Bank. He then came to the conclusion that these rates of interest were far too high. The hon. member then said that if they came into power—and heaven help us if this ever happens—they will embark upon a bold and imaginative policy for the farmers. When the hon. member said this, I pricked up my ears because I am very interested in a policy which will be acceptable to the farmers. He said that they would follow this important policy for the sake of the farmers. He then said that they would pay a pension to farmers having less than a certain income. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) can apparently not even remember his own speech, so how in heaven’s name can he remember anybody else’s? I want him to remain quiet. He then added that this would be the bold and imaginative policy of the United Party for the farmers.

I said that it should be investigated.

You see, Mr. Chairman, here we have another commission of inquiry. The hon. member must not interrupt me; he should have interrupted the hon. member for Yeoville when he was talking such nonsense. He should have reacted then, but he did not. He now wants to argue with me because I ascribe this policy to them. Let me ask them now how many farmers they think they will be able to persuade to vote for them because they are going to pay farmers a pension? How ridiculous! But we must tell this story to the taxpayer because this money will not fall like manna from heaven. We are already hearing so much about the poor and unfortunate taxpayers but these poor and unfortunate taxpayers will certainly have a burden to carry when this United Party comes into power! They may succeed in getting a farmer or two to vote for them in recognition for the pensions to be paid to certain farmers, but because of all the promises that they have already made there will be nothing left of the great surplus which the Government has built up. There will be nothing left after they have fulfilled all those promises and before they have paid farmers their pensions. No, Mr. Speaker, I think that the taxpayer will keep a long way from them! The hon. member told us that only 78,000 broiler chickens were produced in France over the years but that with the encouragement of the Government this production had been increased to 24,000,000 broilers. Yes, we may also be able to produce 24,000,000 broilers in South Africa but I should very much like to know who is going to eat them! No. I am sure that the United Party will not impress the voters by means of broilers and pensions for the farmers.

There is only one further remark made by hon. members opposite this morning to which I want to reply. It was stated that it was the policy of this Government to drive the farmers from their farms. It was contended that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs had apparently said that 2,400 farmers had to leave their farms annually. In association with this there is the misrepresentation that it is apparently the policy of this Government for the small-scale farmers to disappear. Hon. members know that when they make statements of this nature they only make them for political gain and for no other purpose. What this side of the House has said is that uneconomic units must be done away with. But we all hold this view. On the other hand, hon. members opposite want to retain uneconomic units and then pay pensions to those farmers! But we do not want to pay pensions. We want to help the farmer, if his unit can be farmed economically, by means of extension services, by assuring him of a reasonable price level and by assisting him to produce the correct product—to make his unit economic. If, on the other hand, his unit is so uneconomic that no matter what methods are used to make that unit economic it is not possible to do so, it is possible for us in terms of the Land Settlement Amendment Act which we passed here recently as well as through the medium of other measures and large irrigation schemes to make the position of that man economic so that he can make a reasonable living. At the same time we will ensure that we do not waste valuable labour forces by keeping a man on an uneconomic unit when his services can be utilized for economic production.

This Government has an agricultural policy which means a great deal to the farmer. Unfortunately, our farmers have to contend with climatic conditions. It is admitted that our country has a hard climate. Unfortunately, many parts of our country are at the moment experiencing a drought. It is also a fact that there are many farmers whose properties are not large enough for the farming operations they are practising—like a cattle farmer who tries to make a living on a thousand morgen. But it is the policy of this Government to ensure by way of irrigation schemes that sufficient fodder is produced and also to assist farmers to build up their own fodder banks. It is also the policy of this Government to ensure that farmers have sufficient land on which to produce. The farmers are grateful in this regard. The farmers want to retain their feeling of freedom and for that reason they will certainly not allow a United Party to pay pensions to them. The farming population of South Africa will feel very insulted indeed if they have to approach the Government for a pension.

The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) has tried to show that the points made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) in regard to the proposition of the share the farmers have in the economy of this country, were not correct. We accept, of course, that industry has advanced faster than the other sectors, but despite that the other sectors have reaped more benefits than agriculture has. Agriculture has been the worse off of the whole lot. It has been stated that the United Party has lost contact with the farmers. But there is no such thing, because members on this side who are farmers are in very close touch with the farming community of this country. We are in just as close a contact with the farmers as members on the opposite side are. But we at least represent their interests and see what can be done for them. The question of pensions for farmers was not the point which was made by the hon. member for Yeoville. This Government is always telling us that agriculture in other countries is also experiencing difficult times. What the hon. member for Yeoville did was to show how those countries are coming to the aid of the farming community, inter alia, by assisting the small farmer who is struggling to make an existence.

In connection with the question of the elimination of uneconomic units, I think he (the Minister) actually did say that the small farmer must go. But we shall not argue that point. Let us accept then that the Minister said that all farmers who had uneconomic units must go. The extraordinary position is that what is to-day an uneconomic unit was not such in 1948 and prior to that, i.e., under the United Party. But these units have become uneconomic on account of the policies of the Nationalist Party. The net income of farmers has become less and less. That is why units which previously were economic have now become uneconomic. And that is why these have got to go. In our time, I want to repeat, these units were not uneconomic.

In the past we, on many occasions, dew the attention of the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services to soil erosion in this country. Only recently we pointed again to the destruction that was taking place and that it was on the increase. As a matter of fact, the destruction of our soil through soil erosion is taking place at a faster rate than is reclamation. We find that at a congress of the South Western Districts Agricultural Union. Dr. Du Plessis, the Chief Director of Agricultural Scientific Research said this—

Here again there is proof that the Government is not taking the necessary steps to preserve our country for the future. Because of the ineptitude of the hon. the Minister in this matter, we have to appeal to the Government direct for steps in this connection. Last year we called for the resignation of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services because we felt he was incompetent to discharge his functions properly. We feel that this Government has this problem not sufficiently at heart, and there has been no signs here of “kragdadigheid” of which we hear so often.

But this hon. Minister is not the only one who is to blame for the slow rate of reclamation of our soil. The Minister for Agricultural Economics and Marketing also is to blame for that and that because of the low prices fixed by him for the farmers’ products. Consequently farmers are compelled to take more out of the soil than what they can possible put back. In this connection I want to refer to the latest report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. On page 1, the following is stated—

I blame the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing for paying such low prices to farmers that they are compelled to apply methods damaging to the soil.

We have shown how the position of the farmers have deteriorated in this country. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) quoted figures in this connection of monetary aid given by the Land Bank and to show that the arrears in respect of interest and capital payments are on the increase. I do not want to go over this again. There is, however, another figure I wish to mention and that is in respect of seasonal loans made last year. In 1963-4 seasonal loans in respect of mealies amounted to R 122,000,000. In other words, farmers had to borrow money on the crops which they still had to reap to the tune of something like R2 per bag.

The fact that farmers are leaving their farms more and more has been stated over and over again. Let me in this connection quote what Mr. Fick, the chairman of the South Western Districts Agricultural Union said quite recently—

This shows that these people are going backwards all the time. We have more bankruptcies, the Land Bank loans are higher and it was mentioned that in the South Western Districts 60 per cent of the farmers have a nett-income of less than R 1,200 per annum. This is what Mr. Fick said in this connection—

This shows that if 60 per cent of the farmers earn less than R 1,200, i.e. R100 per month, the position they find themselves in is bad. Costs of production are rising steadily. I have here the cost of production for wheat comparing the years 1948 and 1963. Grain bags have risen in price from 20c to 341c; Binding twine from R5.76 to R 10.55; petrol from R7.32 to R13.20; batteries from R11.50 to R18.90; tractor tyres from R66.28 to R107.53; Caterpillar tractors from R3,070 to R8,764; etc. On an average this increase has been 154 per cent, in comparison with the rise in the price of wheat during that period from R4.22 to R5.47, i.e. 30 per cent. I am of course quite prepared to admit that the figure of 154 per cent would be lower if all items were included but the fact remains that the cost of the items I have specified above increased (labour by 183 per cent) and that the farmers’ administrative costs are to-day three to four times as high as the increase in prices. Let us look at the Department’s own figures. According to these the price of wheat increased from 220c to 300c, i.e. an increase of 37 per cent, over a period of 15 years. At the same time the increase in costs rose from 312c to 453c, i.e. nearly 50 per cent. This means that the increase in the cost of production has been far more rapid than the increase in the price of the product. Let us also look at dairy prices. According to the Department the price of fresh milk increased by 15 per cent over the period 1952 to 1964, that of butter fat by 25 per cent, of cheese milk 13 per cent and condensed milk 12 per cent. In comparison with these increases the increase in the cost of production of these items has been out of all proportion. As a result dairy farmers have in many instances gone out of production. We find that large and established herds have had to be sold because they could not be fed as they should have been. As a matter of fact, the dairy farmer is to-day in a shocking position. Production has decreased, partly to drought but mainly on account of the economic position in which the dairy farmer finds himself, with the result that we have now to import something like 10,000,000 lbs. of butter.

Industrial production is protected. Any industrial undertaking gets a good return on its investments. It is being protected by tariffs. To that we have no objection. But as regards the farmer, the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing recently said in the Other Place that the capital return the farmers received was less than 3 per cent.

Where do you get that from?

The Minister gave that figure in the Other Place. This figure is actually under 3 per cent. So we can go on to show that the position of the farmer is very much worse than that of any other community. We believe that the Government does not work out the production costs of the farmer correctly. Capital investments should be on the basis of present market values. A fair value must be placed on the farmer’s land. Those farmers who are reasonable efficient should be taken into consideration. We do not expect the Minister to take into account the production costs of an inefficient farmer. We expect him to take into account the farmer who employs his capital efficiently.

Do you realize what fluctuation that will bring in the stabilization of your price structure?

Take the man who produces reasonably efficiently and exclude that farmer who cannot do so. We do not want his figures to be taken account of. But we believe that this man must at all times be assisted to produce more efficiently.

Have you taken into account the price of bags in making your calculations?

My point is that in calculating the costs of production of the farmer, these factors should be considered. A fair value should be put on the farmer’s land in the first instance. Secondly, the production potential of the reasonably efficient farmer should be taken as a basis. These factors should be taken account of and the farmer must be given a fair return. [Interjections.] The Wheat Board places too low a value on the farmer’s property. It does not take a fair value. [Interjections.] The Government is running away from the principles of the Marketing Act and is not giving the farmer a fair return on his venture.