Mr. Chairman, after the Second Reading debate I think the issue here is now quite a simple one, and that is the position of the Municipality of Kimberley and the other people who have a right to the use of water from the Vaal in terms of the original Act, Act No. 38 of 1934. It is quite clear that the Municipality of Kimberley has an unlimited right which can grow as the growth of Kimberley continues. They have the right to a certain volume of water and as the town grows, so their intake of water will grow larger to meet the organic growth of the town. Sir, there are three types of users provided for in the principal Act. There was the Municipality of Kimberley; then there were people who were riparian to the river and who had the right to water and their riparian rights, and then there were people who were not riparian but who had rights to water and I understand that they got it by means of permits. What we seek from the hon. the Deputy Minister is an assurance that in terms of this Bill, not any other Act which may be introduced hereafter, there is no limitation on the present amount of water which those three types of users are entitled to if this Bill is passed into law; that is to say, that the Municipality of Kimberley shall be entitled to its unrestricted right to water as the city continues to grow; that the riparian owners shall be entitled to their rights to water …

The Kimberley riparian owners?

No, the Kimberley Municipality. I am talking about the Vaal River riparian owners, apart from Kimberley. Let me repeat: There are three types, three groups of users, provided for in the Act; one is the Municipality of Kimberley as a group of people in the city; the other is a group of people who are riparian to the Vaal, and the third is a group of people who are not riparian but who were given rights and who, I understand, have exercised those rights in terms of permits.

Sir, my reason for making this point is because of the provisions of the next clause, which I do not wish to deal with here, but which provides for the establishment of meters to see that users do not get more water than they are entitled to. That is why in this clause we must deal with the amount of water to which they are entitled before we come to clause 2 which stipulates how that amount of water is to be measured. In this clause we can only deal with the volume of water to which they are entitled in terms of the principal Act. It is in respect of these three groups that we seek an assurance that on the passing of this Bill there will be no limitation on the rights of the Kimberley Municipality to abstract the necessary amount of water as its own organic growth continues. That is the position to-day; there is no fixed volume of water for Kimberley. As Kimberley grows it can continue to take more water in terms of this agreement. Then there are the riparian owners to the Vaal, and we seek an assurance that their rights will not be restricted or limited in any way as to the amount of water which they can obtain, and then, thirdly, there is the third group of people who are non-riparian but who are entitled in terms of the principal Act to a certain amount of water, a right which presumably is exercised under permit to-day. We seek an assurance that there will be no restriction or limitation on the amount of water which they can obtain under the new system.

According to the permits issued.

According to the permits issued in terms of the existing Act. You see, Sir, the position is that under clause 1 it may be that for the purposes of saving water, with which we are in entire agreement —we have no complaint about that—the water may be delivered by means of a canal. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs in dealing with this matter in his Second Reading speech stated that that would probably be the system that would be used, but it might very well be a pipeline and not a canal. A pipeline supply under these circumstances to such diverse users of the water may present certain technical difficulties. We, therefore, seek an unqualified assurance that the rights of all three groups of consumers would not be restricted or limited or fettered in any way by this Bill.

Let me first re-assure the hon. member for South Coast who has referred to the possibility that water may be delivered by means of a pipe line. We already have the instance of a pipe line from the Orange River scheme to Bloemfontein. We have arranged in that case that water may be abstracted from that pipe line. If water is to be delivered by means of a pipe line and not by means of a canal we will be able to overcome the problem raised by the hon. member for South Coast. Secondly, I want to assure the hon. member that the passing of this Bill will not affect the rights of riparian owners or of the municipality of Kimberley. Thirdly, the rights of people holding permits will not be affected. The permits which they hold at present will be recognized in terms of this measure.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

This Bill before the House contains only two important principles. The first is a change in the responsibility for the administration of the principal Act, which was passed last year. The second is to omit all the references to South-West Africa and to provide that the principal Act may be made applicable in the Territory by proclamation. It may be made applicable with retrospective effect.

Civil defence, of course, forms part of national defence. There has always been a difference of opinion as to which ministry it should fall under. This was also the case during the discussion of the Act in this House last year. In the normal course of events a good case can be made for civil defence to be a purely civil organization. There are also good grounds for it to be a semi-military organization. However, just as good a case can be made out for it to be a purely military organization. The type of organization differs from country to country. Everything depends on local conditions. Civil defence was an unknown field to us. We had to feel our way and a start was made with a purely civil organization. Now that our programmes are unfolding and the emergency measures are being developed it is becoming increasingly clear that many of the matters dealt with by Civil Defence should be more closely integrated with the facilities of the Defence Force.

It is not necessary to elaborate on the manpower shortage in South Africa. There is also the question of funds. Overlapping has to be eliminated, as well as having parallel facilities for the two organizations, that is to say, those on the home front and those for military resistance.

The following are a few examples of where overlapping and parallel facilities may occur. I refer firstly to communications. In order to be able to conduct operations the Director of Civil Defence must have a communications network, a primary and a secondary system. There have to be technicians to maintain that network. The primary system of the Post Office causes no trouble, but it is apparently unnecessary to have another radio network erected. The Defence Force already has such a system with the necessary technicians. If the Defence Force systems are slightly adapted and extended, it may be possible to supply the needs of civil defence as well.

The second example I want to mention is in connection with manpower. Civil Defence also needs people who have to be trained to be able to serve on the home front in time of war. Certain categories of male citizens should be available for this service. There should be closer co-ordination between the Department of Defence and the Directorate of Civil Defence in regard to the distribution and availability of manpower.

Then I come to the third example, namely training. In order to be able to train people they have to be called up. There have to be instructors, there has to be accommodation; records have to be kept and all these things have to be checked. We cannot afford to establish training centres and provide other facilities for the needs of civil defence as well.

Neither the manpower nor the money is available to deal with all these things. The possibility of training the personnel for civil defence through the existing institutions of the Defence Force will be investigated.

Then, fourthly, there is the question of supplies and equipment. There are important supplies and items of equipment which civil defence has to have. They have to be bought, stored and checked. There should also be standardization. Two parallel streams for these things seem unnecessary. The machinery for making the purchases of defence and for exercising control over such purchases could possibly also be used for the purposes of Civil Defence. Equipment for training, supplies such as warning apparatus and spares therefor, etc., fall into this category.

Fifthly, there is the question of operative quarters. It goes without saying that there will have to be close liaison between the Defence Force and Civil Defence in time of war. It seems as though joint operative quarters will be essential if efficiency is to be ensured. This aspect has to be investigated very thoroughly.

These are a few examples of the problems which are cropping up. In order to bring about the necessary liaison between the two organizations and to ensure the necessary coordination at the highest level, the machinery for the country’s home defence and that for its military defence have to be placed under the same ministerial roof, hence this amendment in connection with the responsibility for the administration of the Act.

Civil defence is not being incorporated into the Defence Force. The personnel attached to it are not being transferred to the Services. They are not getting ranks. As at present, the Director will work in direct association with the Minister. The change as regards the Minister responsible is necessary in order to ensure closer liaison, eliminate overlapping and cut costs. The matters I have mentioned are already being investigated by a departmental committee.

Then I just want to say a few words about South-West Africa. The Civil Defence Act applies to South-West Africa. That creates practical problems. The Administration itself has to pay for all the measures and facilities which are introduced or provided there. South-West administers its own funds and the Minister administering the Act can hardly dictate to the Administration how it is to spend its money. The Director has to make the same policy proposals and ask for the same authority from the Executive Committee in the Territory as he gets from his Minister. In this respect he is actually serving two masters. In the present circumstances it will be more efficient if the South-West Africa Administration itself continues to implement civil defence in the Territory. It is doing so at present. The Director has from the outset been assisting with staff for this purpose and will always continue to give further advice and assistance to the officials of the Administration. The position in respect of financial arrangements may of course change in the future as far as South-West Africa is concerned. In order to prevent a further amendment to the Act having to be sought then, provision is being made at this stage already for the provisions of the Act to be applied to the Territory of South-West Africa by way of proclamation in the Government Gazette if the Republic should at some stage or other be required to subsidize or even to bear the cost of civil defence in South-West Africa.

The transfer of the control of civil defence to the Minister of Defence is a logical development, a development which was foreseen by some members who participated in the original debate when this measure came before the House. We on this side of the House are in principle in favour of the coordination which will be achieved by unified control. There are, however, one or two points flowing from this transfer which I would like to raise. Unfortunately we have the donor, who is giving away control of this section here but not the recipient, and therefore I am going to have to put my questions to the Minister who is no longer going to be in control as to what his successor is going to do with his powers. The first point that I would like to make quite clear is that the transfer of civil defence to the Defence Force does not mean that any homeguards or any armed unit will be incorporated into civil defence. I assume that since this Bill originally entailed fire-fighting and non-offensive and non-military defensive activities, that position will still apply and that it is not intended, now that the Minister of Defence will be controlling civil defence, that work which normally the commandos would be expected to do in regard to civil protection, protection against either internal troubles or guerrilla activities, will remain a military responsibility and will not be incorporated into the sphere of civil defence. That is the first point I would like to make.

The second point is the practical question of the implementation. Already in many parts of South Africa civil defence committees have been established in terms of this law. People have been appointed to various key positions and the machinery is starting to move, but in every case the implementation has taken place through the police. It has been a police officer who has initiated whatever has happened. He has given the training and he has lectured people and he has acted as the official who has actually taken the positive steps to make the legislation work. I should like to ask the Minister whether the police will continue to perform this duty, or whether Army officers will now have to take over that work and go out to meet the committees and to lecture to them and to do the administration which is involved. Because obviously, the sub-department of civil defence itself does not have the staff to do it. That sub-department is an administrative and coordinating machine. It does not have the field workers scattered throughout South Africa. I should like to hear from the Minister exactly what is going to happen in the physical application of this measure under Defence. This applies of course to the question of the secondment of specialists and lecturers and people who will participate in the training in specialized spheres like antigas warfare, atomic warfare, the combating of radiation, etc. Those people are all civilians and they will be obtained largely through the co-operation of the police working with the local authorities and with local specialists.

Then there is another point, and that is the question of the non-Defence aspects of civil defence. This is the only point where there are some grounds for real concern. It is the natural thing that in time of danger or of war or of uprising the Minister of Defence and the Chiefs of Staff will want to throw in, against such attack or uprising, the maximum available forces. Where perhaps a battalion could deal with the situation, if the commanding officer had a brigade or even a division available it would make it so much easier to perform the task and therefore he would be likely to use a larger force than is necessary. Therefore it is a natural approach of any military commander to try to obtain the greatest possible forces and to use them to the greatest possible effect. Now we are giving to that same Department, which essentially and correctly must take this approach towards danger, vast powers to control the whole of the life of South Africa. It will be able to control transport, communications, to direct industry, to take over housing and even to maintain civil government. These are vast powers, and I should like the Minister to tell us to what extent there will be co-operation between the Minister of Defence and the non-defence departments concerned, like Economic Affairs, Transport, Post and Telegraphs and Justice, so that we can have an assurance that the temptation will not be there for Defence to use powers which this Bill transfers to them and which the Minister of Justice, as a civilian administrator, might not have used. He would have been more likely to have looked at it from the point of view of a civilian and ask what we need and what is essential in the particular circumstances, and he would have been likely to have used the powers only up to that point. Defence is likely to say: That is essential, but let us play safe and go further. I should be grateful if the Minister could give us an assurance that the Cabinet Committee which provides the co-ordination will continue to function and that it will act as a brake on the unnecessary application of the powers now granted to the Minister of Defence if the other Departments do not think it is necessary.

Subject to these points on which I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy us, we on this side of the House are in agreement with the transfer of these powers and we will support the Second Reading of the measure.

What we must understand very clearly, and I hope the hon. member for Durban (Point) did, is that civil defence is not going to become part of the Defence Force.

No, but they are going to fall under the same Minister.

For administrative purposes they will fall under the same Minister. That Minister will have to act in two capacities, of course; he will have to act as Minister of Defence and as Minister of Civil Defence. The first question asked by the hon. member was whether in future the position would be the same as in the past, that is to say, that civil defence training will be given under police officials, under retired police officials, who take the lead in target areas and train people. The reply is yes, that will still be the position. But I can imagine a position arising where the services of people who have more knowledge in this field will have to be employed. He mentioned the case of the use of gas masks. It may be that instructors in the Defence Force have more knowledge of gas masks, and in such a case there will be nothing to prevent the Minister from temporarily seconding such a person to give the necessary instruction.

The hon. member asked a further question in regard to training. I did not follow his question very well, but I think he spoke of non-military training. It will not be military training. Now, the hon. member will recall, if he consults the Act as it stands at present, that there are certain categories of people who have to be placed at the disposal of the civil defence services by, as things are at present, the Minister of Defence in consultation with the Minister of Justice. As the position is at present, he has to make a certain number available from the national reserve and he also has to place the ballotees who have fallen out and who have not been called up for training, at the disposal of civil defence. I do not know precisely what the Minister will do in this regard in the future. A new Defence Act is at present being examined by a Select Committee. It may be that the Minister of Defence will place a different section of his people than the present section at the disposal of the Director of Civil Defence to undergo the necessary training and to perform the necessary services.

The third point was related to the non-Defence aspect of civil defence. Civil defence simply remains a civil matter but it is integrated with the facilities of the Defence Force, with the existing system of communications and with the existing system of acquisition. In the future it will in fact be the case that civil defence will not create a separate system of communications for itself, because we will have the same Minister for the Department and the sub-department, and with some adaptation it will be possible for the sub-department too to make use of the system of communications of the head department. Take a second instance. It may be necessary to acquire gas masks. To introduce a new system of acquisition for civil defence will be duplication. The Minister of Defence will be asked to make use of his organization for the acquisition of goods to purchase the necessary aparatus for civil defence. In other words, it remains civil and it remains separate, but for easier co-operation it will fall under one Minister,

What is the link between the defence side of civil defence and the civil side of the administration?

That is contained in the original Act which compels the Minister of Justice—henceforth it will be the Minister of Defence—to consult with other departments and with the Provincial Administrations. I just want to mention, however, that an interdepartmental committee has been appointed and that this committee has to establish even at this early stage exactly how it will be possible to make use of the facilities of the Defence Force.

Bill read a Second Time.

In his reply to my Second Reading speech the hon. member for Yeoville pointed out that his side of the House did not feel happy about the new definition of a white person as it appeared in this measure. He pointed out that whereas in the past there was an alternative test of whether or not a person was a white person, there would be a double test in future. He said that that made the position more difficult for people, and for that reason he felt that his side of the House would not be prepared to accept this definition. After he had made that point I reconsidered the definition, and he was quite right: the definition does make the position more difficult. It makes the position more difficult for an offender. I also felt that seeing that the majority of cases of unlawful carnal intercourse between White and non-White took place in circumstances where one could hardly apply the double test, it might be just as well if I took another look at the definition. For that reason I am going to ask the Committee to vote against this clause.

I want to express the appreciation of this side of the House for the attitude adopted by the Minister. It is quite correct that we were opposed to this clause for the very reason the Minister has just mentioned, and we were going to make another appeal to him to reconsider the matter. I want at the same time to express my appreciation to the Minister for the way he has dealt with these Bills of a like nature and the way he has met our objections and his willingness to have frequent discussions with us on points of difficulty because, as was pointed out before, this is not a savoury matter to discuss in the House and therefore it is just as well to have our discussions outside the House. We will therefore readily accede to the Minister’s request and vote against this clause.

Clause put and negatived.

Clause 2:

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

I move—

(2) No prosecution in respect of an offence under subsection (1) shall be instituted except on the written authority of the Attorney-General having jurisdiction in the area concerned or of a member of his staff designated by him in writing.

We thank the Minister for moving the amendment. I just want him to make it quite clear that the object of this clause is to hit at the professionals, the people who are being paid. If he will make that quite clear, we will take it as an instruction to the Attorney-General as to what is expected of him in a matter of this nature.

There is just a small point. In his Second Reading speech the Minister mentioned the safeguard that it will be the Attorney-General who gives authority for instituting a prosecution. The amendment itself goes slightly wider and refers to the Attorney-General or a member of his staff designated by him in writing. Since this is intended to be an important safeguard, I would just like to have the Minister’s assurance that there will be a limited number of such authorizations, and to senior people.

I can assure hon. members that the clause will be applied in such a way as to hit at those who make money out of unlawful carnal intercourse, directly or indirectly. That is why I have moved the amendment that prosecutions will be instituted only after special instructions have been issued by the Attorney-General. It is not intended to cover incidental offences, and there can so easily be an incidental offender, someone who furnishes some other person with a name, and if unlawful carnal intercourse takes place such a person will be guilty under this clause. In such a case the Attorney-General or the person designated by him will, of course, refuse to prosecute.

As far as the hon. member for Pinelands is concerned, I may just say that the authority will be delegated at most to the Deputy Attorney-General, who performs the same duties as the Attorney-General. I think the hon. members may safely leave the clause as it stands. It hits at unlawful carnal intercourse. It hits at those who make money out of unlawful carnal intercourse, but it is not intended to cover the case where someone may get into trouble by accident.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

I shall ask the Committee to vote against this clause for the same reason as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech.

Clause put and negatived.

Clause 6:

I move the amendment, as printed—

Again we do not object to this amendment moved by the Minister which followed on representations made by us, and again we want to express our appreciation of the Minister’s attitude.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title:

I move—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

On 21st March of this year I laid upon the Table copies of the Trade Agreement to which this motion relates.

The Trade Agreement which was signed by representatives of the Governments of South Africa and Malawi on 13th March, 1967, and which came into operation on 1st April, 1967, is based mainly on the arrangements which existed between South Africa and the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in terms of the 1960 Trade Agreement.

After the dissolution of the Federation the latter agreement was still applied temporarily between South Africa and Malawi, pending the conclusion of a separate agreement which would regulate trade relations between the two states.

Negotiations for the conclusion of such an agreement were conducted between representatives of the two Governments during the month of December. These negotiations resulted in the formulation and signing of the agreement which is now being submitted to this hon. House for ratification.

The agreement is essentially a tariff preference agreement entered into within the framework of the two Governments’ international obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The agreement is in fact formulated in such terms that it will do justice to Malawi’s particular export needs and also its position as a young, developing country, to a larger extent than the trade agreement with the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

The tariff concessions made by South Africa to Malawi under the agreement provide for the admission to the Republic of certain products of that country at rebates at our current most-favoured tariffs, or for admission free of any customs duty. These concessions cover a large variety of commodities, most of which are as yet not produced and exported by Malawi. The relevant concessions, however, are aimed not only at promoting the interests of that country’s existing export industries on the South African market, but also at enabling export industries that may be developed in Malawi in future to compete on the South African market on a favourable customs tariff basis.

The tariff treatment which South Africa, in turn, has negotiated under the agreement, places her on the same footing as the countries of the British Commonwealth—in other words, she enjoys the preferential tariff treatment afforded by Malawi to the Commonwealth countries. This agreement provides a firm foundation for the maintenance and further expansion of reciprocal trade traffic between the two countries. Not only do I want to express the trust that South African exporters will make the best possible use of the advantages under the agreement, but on this occasion I also want to appeal to our exporters to buy more from Malawi and thus assist this young trade partner of our country in a tangible fashion in her endeavour to raise her general level of development by means of greater exports.

First of all I should like to apologize to the hon. the Minister that I was not in the House when he rose to introduce this motion. I didn’t know that would happen quite so soon. However, the Minister has explained the events leading up to this agreement and said that it followed upon the break-up of the Federation and was restoring a trade relationship which existed between Malawi and the Republic at the time of the Federation. He is now asking the House to approve of this agreement. Naturally we approve of it. This side of the House has always urged, although not always with much success, the creation of stronger economic ties first of all with our neighbours to the north and then also with other African states. So, when we are asked to approve of an agreement of this nature, we are in a sense being asked to approve of the Government at long last adopting United Party policy. I do not want to start an argument on this particular aspect—we are getting used to the conversion of the Government to United Party views. This is another instance of their doing so. That we should like to have on record.

I do not think the details of this agreement are of the utmost importance at this stage. We are dealing here with a new state with whom, as the Minister has pointed out, we have had relations in the past, although those relations did not amount to much in practice. Here we are, therefore, really starting de novo and this is the first important practical step towards the implementation of the Government’s new policy. Out ward looking policy, of taking active steps to tie up our common economic interests with other states in Africa. This, to my mind, is the real important feature of this agreement. Both sides of the House are anxious to develop reciprocal trade relations and to strengthen these relations. This affects all sorts of facets of our economic life. Therefore, we have no hesitation in endorsing the motion of the hon. the Minister for the approval of this agreement. However, I should just like to add that whether this agreement is going to mean anything or not, whether it will bear fruit or not, depends to a large degree upon the way in which it is administered.

The Minister concluded his remarks by making an appeal to industrial and commercial interests in the Republic to buy from and sell more to Malawi, but I am afraid that is not enough. Apart from the importance of the agreement itself as a commercial document it it an outward and visible sign that the Government means business when it talks about establishing closer and stronger ties with our neighbours to the north of us. At the same time, however, I want to suggest to the Minister that he makes an appeal to the interests concerned to see to it that this agreement succeeds. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether his Department has made anything like a proper survey of what trade there is offering in Malawi and what the possibilities are of a two-way trade between the two countries. I do not know whether Malawi has at this stage of its development anything of an industrial or commercial organization and as a result it may be that the encouragement and building up of a two-way trade may rest largely upon us. In this connection I should like to submit two suggestions to the Minister. If he means business, as I think he does, he should first of all see to it that a proper survey is made of the trade possibilities both ways. For that purpose he may have to organize a small mission from here, a mission representing industrial and commercial interests as well as his own Department. Just after the war we sent a similar mission to all African territories to make contacts.

Secondly, I think the Minister should consider appointing a trade commissioner in Malawi. I do not suppose that the establishment of such an office will pay any dividends just at the moment but I am quite sure that if trade with Malawi is going to amount to anything there should be a permanent representative of this Government, particularly of the Minister’s Department, in Malawi to tell the producers in Malawi what we can buy from them and to give information to our people here as to the needs of Malawi, the state of the market and, generally, to take active steps in building up trade. I think the House will agree that it is not sufficient just to endorse this agreement and to leave it at that. We expect the Government to take active steps to make this a living document. It should bring results and pave the way for other successful negotiations and agreements to strengthen economic ties for the building up of a great economic block in Southern Africa, something which both sides of the House would like to see.

We do not like quarrelling with the Opposition when they agree with us, but the hon. member for Constantia made an allegation which we cannot allow to pass without more ado. He said that this was only one more example of the Government’s acceptance of United Party policy.

Of course that is so.

It is certainly not the case. The hon. member for Constantia is therefore suggesting that we are taking over United Party policy if we enter into trade relations with an African state in this case Malawi. But in this regard the difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Government has always professed itself anxious and willing to enter into such relations with its neighbours. The United Party also wants to do that, but it is set as a condition that the Government should first abandon its policy of separate development in order that the way may be cleared for further negotiations. This Government has most certainly always been anxious to enter into negotiations and relations with our northern neighbours, but on condition that we shall never sacrifice our policy. That is the difference between the Government and the United Party as far as that is concerned. But, as I have said, we are grateful when they co-operate with us and for that reason we do not want to quarrel with them too much on this point. However, we cannot allow it to go on record that the Government is here taking over a policy point of the United Party lock, stock and barrel.

While listening to the hon. member for Constantia, I got the impression that his Party was in favour of the expansion of our trade, and not this Government, but that we on this side have actually always opposed it. That is the impression he tried to create. But allow me to point out to him that the agreement with the Federation in 1960 was entered into when this Government was in power. Prior to that time there was an agreement with Southern Rhodesia which was also entered into by this Government. The conclusion of trade agreements under this Government is therefore by no means new, not as far as African states are concerned either. Three years ago our previous Prime Minister pointed out the desirability and necessity of economic co-operation in a larger area in Southern Africa. He spoke about a possible common market for Southern Africa. We then made a thorough investigation to ascertain in what fields economic co-operation could be created. With countries in Southern Africa it is frequently the case that as far as raw materials are concerned they are all in the same position—we cannot supplement each other. In many respects this also applies to agricultural produce. Even at that time a very thorough survey was therefore made of what we could do to supplement each other economically. That this agreement has now been entered into with Malawi is therefore by no means a new development, but follows upon thorough surveys made over the past number of years. Last year, when negotiations started, some of our representatives were there and a very thorough survey was then made of what our two countries could buy from each other. Subsequent to that there has been a very strong mission from Malawi, consisting of three Ministers, here in South Africa and they had discussions on a very broad basis with Ministers and Departments to determine in which fields assistance could be rendered. The agreement we now have before us contains the agreement entered into in the field of trade. The agreement has already been followed up by the private sector. In more than one field they are already engaged in negotiations with a view to providing certain services and performing certain work there. Certain agreements have even been concluded. I believe that the private sector is well aware of the possibilities Malawi offers us, and that they will make thorough use of the goodwill between the two countries in the economic field. Thus a delegation of the Banana Board recently visited Malawi to investigate the possibilities of importing bananas from that country. On the part of both the private sector and the Government there is therefore the necessary goodwill and willingness to put this agreement into effect in order that it may not merely be a paper agreement but an agreement which will indeed be implemented.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move as an unopposed motion—

Unfortunately the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is in bed with a severe attack of influenza.

Mot on put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? I think it is essential to take a brief look at the general situation which has prevailed in our agricultural industry since we last had the opportunity to discuss this matter. It is a pleasure to be able to say that with a few exceptions the greatest drought in human memory has now apparently been broken finally. Not only the authorities can breathe a sigh of relief but also the farmer himself, and he can face the future with greater confidence. I am sure all hon. members on this side of the House are sincerely grateful to Providence for the relief that has been experienced. In many parts of our country a shortage of rain has even been converted into an abundance of rain, which may also be to the detriment of our agriculture. But despite the favourable climatic changes, we on this side of the House believe that there is still great concern about the agricultural industry, concern which may be attributed to various factors. In particular that concern is evident on the economic front of our agricultural industry.

Mr. Chairman, the farmer of South Africa, like any other citizen of the country, is expected to maintain a high standard of living. In fact, everybody is urged to yearn for a higher standard of living and to strive to attain it. The farmer, like any other citizen of the country, is expected to increase his productivity. May I say that as far as increasing his productivity is concerned, the South African farmer has not let the economy of South Africa down. The latest report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is a testimonial to the farmer’s achievement in increasing his production, and that despite the fact that we have had to endure the most stringent onslaughts by the climate that the country has known in the past few decades.

In my view the most urgent question that should now be asked is as follows: Is the farmer of South Africa in a better position as a result of the tremendous increase in the volume of his production? Has his profit margin shrunk or has it increased? For surely this is the true criterion for determining whether the farmer is now in a better position. The true criterion is: Is the farmer’s profit margin increasing, or is it shrinking? Now I want to ask hon. members: Why is it that one hears about so many good farmers, even supposedly prosperous farmers, who say: “A son of mine go farming? No, never!” I think that in the past few years in particular one has heard that observation regularly, even from prosperous farmers.

Do prosperous farmers say that?

Yes, prominent farmers, people who inherited their lands, farmers who are an example to others, have used those words from time to time. And I maintain that they say that because they are helplessly caught in the vice of ever-increasing production costs on the one hand and a decreasing profit margin on the other. I say that after having allowed for the fact that climatic conditions naturally have a tremendous influence on the increase in the production costs and the decreasing tendency of the profit margin. Consequently one finds that among the average South African farmers there is a revaluation of their position at present, a revaluation as never before. Their confidence in their future, seen from the economic point of view, has reached rock-bottom, Sir, and this should not be the case. A farmer who knows South Africa and who also knows the outside world is simply unable to understand why his prices are always forced down whereas the prices of all other goods are rising continually. He fails to understand why his prices are forced down while here in South Africa, as elsewhere in the world, millions of hungry people are crying out for food. Yes, the farmer of South Africa fails to understand how there can be any question of overproduction while there is still so much to be done to bring his produce to the consumer who needs it—the person who needs it every day in order to live, even though that man may not be able to afford it at this stage.

From expert quarters, and also from less expert quarters, warnings are issued about a population explosion; we hear that here, we hear it in the outside world. Even the hon. the Minister of Finance warned some time ago that by 1980 we shall have to be equipped to feed the millions and millions of extra mouths. The modern farmer is thoroughly aware of these facts, but what he fails to grasp is the following: He cannot understand why, in spite of all his exertions, all his mechanization, all the research, all the skill and all the dedication, he is confronted by a decrease in the profitability of his industry. He wants to know: Why is the profit margin of my industry decreasing? Why can there not be an increase in the farmer’s standard of living? Why should the farmer turn to credit more and more in order to make a living? No matter what branch of agriculture one investigates, this remains the crucial problem in agriculture. If there are in fact branches of farming where the position is more favourable than the one I have just outlined, they are the exceptions.

The decrease in the profitability of our agricultural industry is the fly in the ointment. Now I want to say that the farmer fully realizes that large-scale increases in the prices of his produce can in fact have detrimental results at a time of inflation. He fully appreciates that. But he also expects that there should be no decrease in the price of his produce in the prevailing circumstances. So many people are asking that wages and salaries should be increased. Nobody has ever suggested that wages be decreased. But apparently the farmer is expected, under these circumstances, to be contented when his prices are forced down. I want to make it quite clear that nobody on this side of the House is trying to see the agricultural industry as an isolated sector. Because this industry forms part of our national economy, it must necessarily also make certain sacrifices. We appreciate that, of course. But in these times it is so clear how vulnerable the agricultural industry in fact is. It is also clear, however, that in the past 20 years the industry has not received the attention due to it. We wanted to help the industry only in times of temporary emergencies—but we never penetrated to the actual problems of agriculture. The question the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and his Deputy Minister should ask themselves is this: Are we in earnest about improving the profitability of the industry? Do they want to do that, or do they not want to do that? If we are in fact sincere, and if we are determined to do that, the following question arises: What is the role of the State, what is the role of the hon. the Minister, and what is the role of the Department in this respect? I submit that the role should be completely different from the one that has been played until now. If they want to increase the profitability of the industry, the role they will have to play in future is completely different from the one they have played so far.

What role do you suggest they should play?

We shall tell you that in the course of this debate.

Mr. Chairman, here before me I have a copy of the speech the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing made in the Other Place yesterday. I have gone through the speech very thoroughly. The Minister spoke about “broad principles” that should be laid down in agriculture and that they had laid down for agriculture so far. I submit that there is a complete absence of “broad principles” in our agriculture, let alone a policy. The policy changed as the weather conditions changed. As the weather conditions in South Africa changed, the agricultural policy in South Africa changed accordingly. I shall tell the hon. the Minister what I mean. If it is dry, ad hoc assistance has to be rendered; if it rains and the climate is favourable and the crops good, then the price has to be decreased.

Where is that written?

It is not written anywhere, but it is the Government’s policy. That is the biggest joke of the whole matter; it is not written anywhere …

When did the Minister say that?

No, I did not say the hon. the Minister had said that. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister should understand me very well. I say the Minister said yesterday that he had laid down broad principles, but as I read through his speech, there was only an absence of principles and also an absence of an established policy. And now I am discussing what they have done so far. I want to repeat: If it is dry, ad hoc assistance is rendered; it if rains and the crops are good, the prices are decreased. If there is a shortage the attitude seems to be: “Let demand and supply take their course.” If there is an increase in the price of the farmer’s product, as we see in the price of meat at present, then it is all very well. Supply and demand is the policy. Now there is a shortage of meat, the price rises, and the farmer must necessarily get the benefit of that, and if there is a surplus we decrease the price again. That, broadly, is the policy that side of the House has followed for the past 19 years.

I want to deal with another point. We are actually satisfied as far as our products are concerned which are sold exclusively on the overseas markets. As a rule the Government is satisfied with those sales. In that regard we usually experience the least difficulty. But the reason is this: It usually provides the Government with the easiest answer. If good prices are not fetched on those markets, someone else can be blamed for it. That is the attitude of that side.

That brings me to those products for which there is a heavy domestic demand. I should like to deal with the question of maize to-day. In the Other Place the hon. the Minister said —and he also referred to the price of maize in that connection—that the actual difficulty in respect of prices which confronted South Africa at present, was in effect that we could not use different norms for the various prices of our agricultural produce. According to him we would then have discordination. If the price of maize is pushed up suddenly, then according to him all the farmers in the Northern Cape, in Kuruman, in Vryburg, in the Mafeking region, will say that they will put their land under maize, and then, before we know where we are, there will be a tremendous surplus of maize and also an increase in the price of land. He said that in the times of inflation we were living in, we could not afford this type of thing, but last year the maize price was adjusted. An adjustment of approximately 28½cents a bag was then made. Then the Minister was not concerned about these different norms that he supposedly has to apply. And now that adjustments have to be made in the sense that the maize price has to be decreased, the Minister has to find excuses.

The chairman of the Maize Board, the hon. member for Ladybrand, also has to find certain excuses for the decrease in the price. The hon. member for Ladybrand even had to caution the farmers with regard to the prices paid for maize. The hon. member for Ladybrand contended, furthermore, that the decrease in the price of maize was justified because there had been an increase of 28½ cents a bag last year. According to the hon. member he underestimated the crop last year and consequently many of the maize farmers actually got the increase of 28½ cents a bag as a present. According to the hon. member there is now a decrease of 22½ cents and 20 cents, respectively, and not fully 281 cents. The hon. member also said that no further levy would be called for this year. He added that the Maize Board had actually called for an increase in the price. That is quite correct. As I said, the hon. member is the chairman of the Maize Board and the Board did in fact ask for an increase in the price. Why did the hon. member and his Board call for an increase? Because they know that in the past year there has been an increase in production costs.

Now you are talking nonsense.

The hon. member says I am talking nonsense. Well, it is rather strange that Mr. Chris Cilliers, the director of the S.A. Agricultural Union, made a personal statement to the Press in which he said that it was generally known that there had been an increase of 10 cents in the past year. Hon. members on that side say I am talking nonsense. I shall now quote from a report which appeared in Die Transvaler on the 26th of this month, with reference to what the hon. member for Ladybrand said. The report reads as follows (translation)—

In his statement the chairman of the Maize Board admitted that there had been an increase in production costs. Why, then, a decrease in the price of maize by the Government?

According to the hon. the Minister the Government cannot give the maize farmer the price he is asking for at this stage. Nor can the price be left unchanged. According to him such action would merely cause further inflation. I think we accept, considering that there has been a record crop of maize this year, a crop which is considerably larger than that of last year, that it will in any event bring an extra R80 million into circulation. Now the Minister is afraid that if he grants an increase a further R10 million or R20 million may be brought into circulation. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister the following question:

Let us presume, while inflationary conditions are still continuing, that we receive a fantastic increase in the price of wool in September. Let us presume the aggregate cheque for all wool farmers was approximately R120 million last year, and that next season the cheque will suddenly be R160 million. Will the Minister then say: “Look, the wool farmers have too much money now; they bring too much money into circulation and they are merely furthering inflation?” Will he say that? [Interjections.] If the Minister’s argument is correct, it means that he may take steps to prevent them from having too much money. He will impose a special levy, for example, to absorb the extra funds from circulation, because they would supposedly be inflationary.

I believe that the greatest political crime committed towards the maize farmer is the Government’s lack of sympathy. Hon. members know that during the past two or three years the average maize farmer has had some of the poorest crops in our history, whilst having to spend a tremendous amount of money on planting their crops, on mechanization, on obtaining land and on fertilizing the soil. Despite all this they had a poor crop as a result of climatic conditions. And what is happening now? Now that they have an opportunity to make up that leeway, there is no sympathy on the part of the Government. I say that if ever the Government has forfeited the confidence of the maize farmer of South Africa, it is certainly now. I believe that the Government decrease of the price of maize proves only one thing, namely that the Government does not have the sympathy with those people one would expect. I am therefore not surprised that a man like Mr. Chris Cilliers was compelled to say that the farmers were dissatisfied with the decrease in the prices. That is why the hon. member for Lady-brand had to step into the breach and say that he cautioned the farmers who were dissatisfied with the maize price. According to the newspaper report to which I referred, the hon. member asked farmers “to have regard to the broader considerations and to see the matter in its proper perspective”.

This is the trouble with the hon. member for Ladybrand: he has a split personality. He is the chairman of the Maize Board, and at the same time he is a member of that side of this hon. House. One moment he justifies the decrease in the price of maize, and the next moment he can also justify the fact that his Board called for a higher maize price. We on this side are entitled to test the hon. member, as chairman of the Maize Board, in respect of his position as a member of this hon. House. Here he must be prepared to accept a responsibility for his actions, not only as chairman of the Maize Board but also as a member of this House and as a member of the Government Party. I really think that after adopting this attitude the hon. member for Ladybrand can no longer have a claim to the confidence of the maize farmers. I want to tell the hon. member for Ladybrand and the hon. member for Christiana, who is also a member of the Maize Board, that …

No, that is not so.

Well, the hon. member was a member of the Maize Board. I suppose he left the Maize Board at the right moment. I want to tell the hon. members that this action was the best they could have taken to aggravate the prevailing discord among the country’s maize producers.

Mr. Chairman, I hope to raise further matters later in the course of this debate. But I want to conclude with this. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing that I disagree with him when he says that one cannot lay down different norms for determining the prices of certain agricultural products. The Minister is quite mistaken, or rather, he has been quite mistaken for the past 19 years, because he is already applying different norms. There are certain products which are subsidized while others are not subsidized. Surely the Minister is not trying to tell me that the price of wheat is determined on the same basis as the price of maize? There are certain agricultural products which are sold under the fodder scheme, whereas other products are sold on the foreign market. We already find that different norms are being applied. This side of the House simply cannot accept that as an excuse in justification of the decrease in the price of maize.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Newton Park should say that the Government has decreased the price of maize because there has been a large crop, and that it is the policy of the Government to make the price of maize fluctuate according to the crops which are produced. The hon. member does not know the history of his own Party, otherwise he would not have made such an accusation here. What did the United Party Government do in the days when maize could be exported at tremendous profits? In 1947, for example, the price of maize was increased to £1 2s. 6d. In 1948 we wanted to keep the price at the level it was on then. We had a larger crop and we could make a small profit on the small surplus that was produced, but what did the then Minister, Mr. Strauss, do? He decreased the price to £1 Is. 3d. because there was a small surplus. The Maize Board then also sent a deputation to the Minister and asked him to allow us to use some of the export profits which had already accrued to keep the price unchanged, but he rejected that request. The Government is criticized because it has decreased the price, but the Government’s critics lose sight of the fact that when the price was determined last year the estimated crop was only 49 to 50 million bags. At the time it was felt that the maize producers, who had had poor crops in the previous two years, should be helped by an upward adjustment of 28½ cents, and the Government agreed to approve that upward adjustment under the circumstances, with a view to the higher production costs and the higher land prices. What happened subsequently? We found that last year’s crop totalled 57½ million bags instead of 49 million. The hon. member for Newton Park talks about the terribly poor crops of the last two or three years, but that crop of 57½ million bags was the second largest crop on record in this country.

Then why did you import maize?

That hon. member knows very little about maize. Hon. members of the Opposition criticize the Government for having decreased the price of maize, but have they ever asked themselves whether all the millions of people abroad who are suffering famine have money to buy our maize? He forgets that only last year we could have exported maize at a small profit, if there had been a surplus. In the meantime, however, the price abroad has also decreased. Only a month ago the price was 411 cents delivered here at the coast, whereas last Wednesday it was 369 cents. Those losses have to be made good in some way or other. It is said that the maize producers lost R20 million because the price of maize was decreased by 20 cents a bag, but there is no mention of the fact that the maize producers are going to get R100 million more than last year, when we had the second largest crop on record, and that they are not going to pay a cent in levies to cover these export losses. What happened in 1963, when there was a crop of 67½ million bags? Then there was a downward adjustment and a levy was imposed to cover the export losses. If one has regard to these facts, then it is clear that the Government acted very equitably this year. We have to take into consideration that the Maize Board made an upward adjustment of 7.2 cents a bag in view of the increased values of land, and in addition the Maize Board recommended an upward adjustment of 13.5 cents a bag this year, in spite of this large crop, a total of approximately 20 cents a bag. I do not want to blame the Government. The producers on the Maize Board wished to keep the price at its existing level, and for that reason they recommended the upward adjustment, but if we have regard to the actual facts, no Government can justify a price of R3.50 a bag in a surplus year like this one, when it is quite possible that 40 million bags will have to be exported. If the price had not been decreased by 20 cents, the loss on export maize would have been 20 cents more a bag.

Were these facts not known to the Maize Board?

As we see the matter, having regard to the prices overseas, there is the danger that the Stabilization Fund will be virtually exhausted, and if those 20 cents had been added, I am almost certain that if the price on the overseas market decreased even further the Fund would become completely exhausted. The hon. member said that the Maize Board’s estimates of the crop were hopelessly incorrect. He is not aware of the fact that the Maize Board relies on crop estimates received from the Department. Those crop estimates are based on returns received from maize producers. Therefore the hon. member cannot place all the blame on the shoulders of the Maize Board and the Government, because the crop estimates are based on information the Maize Board receives from the producers.

The hon. member also referred to the 10 cents mentioned by the director of the S.A. Agricultural Union. Those 10 cents are included in the price. Last year, with an upward adjustment to provide for higher land values, with the increased production costs and entrepreneur’s profit, the price reached 321½ cents, and if one adds 10 cents to that, it comes to 331½ cents; that is actually what the price should then have been. Hon. members of the Opposition tell us all these stories because they heard that there were certain farmers who were dissatisfied. One can appreciate that the producer would like to retain the price he received last year; that is quite understandable, but now the Opposition wishes to make political propaganda from the fact that the price has been decreased by a small amount, although even at the decreased price the maize producers will get R100 million more for their crop this year. Do hon. members of the Op position realize that last year 5,400,000 morgen were under maize, and that this year more than 6 million morgen were under maize? Do they realize that the gross income of the maize producer has increased from plus-minus R35 a morgen to almost R50 a morgen?

I want to say how deeply disappointed I am and how indignant I am about the fact that the Minister is not here in person to-day to reply to this debate. In saying this, I am not reflecting on the hon. the Deputy Minister who is acting here on behalf of the Minister.

The Minister is in the Other Place. You know that it has been arranged with the Whips for him to be in the Other Place to-day.

I do not know of any arrangement with the Whips; I only know that he should have been here to-day because it is his duty to be here when his Vote is under discussion.

You know that the United Party has asked him to be in the Other Place to-day.

Where are all the members of your Cabinet? Not a single one is here. They should be ashamed of themselves.

I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an explanation of Item G, “Payment to the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa on behalf of Langeberg Co-Op. Limited, R1½ million”.

Mr. Chairman, I too should like to say how glad I am that we have had rains throughout the country. We are all extremely grateful for those rains because the country needed those rains desperately and with the exception of a very few districts we have probably had more or less sufficient rain. These rains have been in the interests of the country but not in the interests of this Government, because the Government has always made the drought an excuse, but after these good rains it will no longer be able to do so.

At some later stage in the course of my speech I shall come to the hon. member for Ladybrand. There is, of course, no doubt about it that the position of the farmer in the country still is anything but good and there is not the least doubt about it that he has not received his rightful share in the prosperity of this country. Here and there we do find an improvement as regards some product or other; things improve a little and then the position once more deteriorates, but in general the farmers’ position is still bad and is becoming worse continually. It is beyond doubt that the farmer generally receives only 2 per cent interest on his capital investment. My authority for that statement is in the first place the hon. the Minister himself, because approximately three years ago he said in the Other Place, in reply to an interjection, that the farmer did not even receive 3 per cent on his capital investment. Last year the hon. member for Heilbron himself said here—

That is perfectly true and with the recent droughts I believe that it most probably is even less than 2 per cent. The farming community has been going down-hill gradually over the past number of years. One notices from the report of the South African Agricultural Union that the mortgage debts of farmers are constantly increasing. I quote from page 7—

According to the latest report of the Land Bank further loans which amounted to R60 million were granted in the following year. I believe that these were loans which were mainly granted to farmers who had fallen on evil days. The commercial banks do not grant further loans, because they are afraid that the credit of farmers is no longer good enough. On the whole they still have what they had. Here and there a single one would have been taken over by the Land Bank, but the largest part of this amount is due to the fact that the position of farmers has deteriorated to such an extent, up to last year with a further R60 million. Surely it is a fact that the incomes of farmers in this country are such that 40 per cent of them earn approximately R1,500 per annum. Surely one cannot make a living on that. Small wonder that farmers are still leaving their farms and I believe that in the near future this process will be accelerated as a result of the drought and as a result of the Government. The Administrator of Natal recently said that if this process were to continue in this way, approximately 500,000 Whites will be left in the rural areas as compared to 11 million non-Whites by 1975, which is just round the corner. I really do believe that the Government is neglecting the farmers and I think one reason why it does not care that people are leaving the rural areas is that that is its way of solving the shortage of manpower. It does not want younger people to go farming; it wants the young men to solve the shortage of manpower for it. The smaller farmer can simply not make an existence any longer, and I also believe that the Government no longer cares whether or not he remains on the farm; let him move away.

I believe that the farmer’s position must be improved, and that can be done either by paying higher prices or by ensuring lower production costs for him. We do, of course, believe that subsidies are necessary to keep prices low for consumers, and we have said so. I am sorry that the hon. member for Queenstown is not present at the moment. The other day he referred to the fact that it was my policy that that had to be done, and I openly state that we believe that to be necessary in many respects. The strange thing is that this year subsidies were increased from R62 million to R77 million, and quite rightly so, because that too is United Party policy. [Interjections.] But the hon. member for Queenstown attacked me the other day for having advocated that policy and for having said that one had to subsidize the consumer. He wants to have his cake and eat it. Perhaps I should not say that because he is not here.

We will inform him about it.

He also spoke of the hand-picked candidate we set against him during the election, but he has forgotten that he himself was a hand-picked candidate in 1953 when he fought an election in Kimberley (District) but at that time he did not do so well. [Interjection.] We believe that production costs should be kept as low as possible, and that the producer has to receive his production wage plus an entrepreneur’s wage, and the hon. member for Ladybrand is also in favour of that. That is recorded in Column 2924 of last year’s Hansard when he said, “Milk and other commodities are based on the average production cost plus”; and according to a report in the Sunday Times he repeated in an interview—

That is his policy, and that is also our policy, but we are always being attacked on that score. [Time expired.]

I just want to refer to what the hon. member for Newton Park said. He was quite wrong in making a comparison between wool and mealies. I just want to tell him that last year the Government subsidized the mealie farmer to an extent of R31 million. Surely he cannot make a comparison between wool and mealies. He said that if the price of wool were to increase to such an extent that the farmer would receive R60 million more, the Government would say that that was unreasonable, that it was causing inflation and that we would decrease the price of wool. Surely that is a true United Party argument. One does not speak like that. The hon. member is no longer a child and I cannot understand him wasting the time of this House with such absurdities. It merely creates confusion. At the same time I want to point out to him, seeing that he said that the Government had withdrawn the subsidy, that this product is one which is exported. This is a product of which larger quantities are being produced annually. This is a product which farmers like to produce. I should like to break a lance for the producers of this product. I say that 85 per cent of the farmers who grow mealies are prospering as a result of their efficiency. Prices of land are increasing.

Do you want an increase in price?

As a mealie farmer I shall welcome that. I should like to have high prices for mealies, but we as a responsible Government which knows that it is going to remain in power for many years to come, surely has to see to it that we do not disturb our economy. Seeing that we were told to-day how badly things were going with the mealie farmer, I want to say that we sometimes err by not speaking with appreciation of the farmer who puts his shoulder to the wheel and does his duty. Strangely enough, there are United Party farmers who also make a success, who prosper and who increase their production per morgen annually. Hon. members speak of a population explosion, but I have so much confidence in the farmers of this country, and if I consider that we have not even scratched the surface of the agricultural possibilities of this country, that I foresee the day when we shall be able to feed 80 million people in this country because there is such a large number of new practices which we can apply, such as methods of fertilizing the soil. We have not even begun using trace elements. The hon. member for Ladybrand told you a short while ago that six million morgen had been put under mealies, but have you calculated what our average production per morgen is? I know farmers who are going to harvest 75 bags on one morgen of dry land. Is that not good? But actually I am on my feet to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Gardens in regard to the R1.5 million to the Langeberg Co-Op.

I want to say that a coaling system was introduced at the Langeberg Co-Op in 1958 chiefly for assisting the pineapple farmers, the voters of the hon. member for East London (City), who were in difficulties. The idea was that it would be recoverable from those members. In the canning industry the margin of profit has been cut to the bone and the industry in South Africa is dependent on its foreign sales. For various reasons Langeberg got into financial difficulties and the State gave instructions that certain reorganization had to take place at Langeberg, which led to Langeberg operating on a profit basis for the past three years. But Langeberg pays annual interest charges of R1.1 million on its debts and that makes it very difficult for Langeberg to get on a completely sound footing. Hon. members opposite may ask why it is necessary to accommodate an agricultural co-operative society in such a way. The reason is that in the past Langeberg played more than one part in respect of farmers who were not protected by means of control, and the State felt—as farmers we are grateful for that—that Langeberg, with its deficits of approximately R5 million, ought to be accommodated by means of this R1.5 million which should have been recovered from the farmers, particularly from the pineapple farmers in the Eastern Province, in order to try and keep Langeberg operating on a profit basis as it has done over the past three years. The hon. member for Newton Park said that we should give the farmers many more subsidies and consequently I think they will support this. I just want to mention that the part played by Langeberg in this country is a very large one, because Langeberg’s total turnover in canned products amounted to R22.1 million last year, of which more than R13 million had to come from the export market. At the moment Langeberg has more than 2,000 Bantu and 700 Whites in full-time employment. Last year it paid more than R3.6 million for tins only, R900,000 to the Railways and R1.8 million for sugar. This is, to my mind, a praiseworthy organization which is in the hands of farmers, both supporters of the National Party and the United Party. On cartons alone it spent R4-million. Can you imagine what a tremendous organization this is which spends R500,000 on labels for tins in one year only? It is a tremendous organization, but in the past things went wrong and consequently farmers, both in the Western Province and the Eastern Province, are very grateful to-day to the State for adopting this accommodating attitude. I think everyone on both sides of this House appreciates this and is particularly grateful for it.

With reference to what the hon. member for Newton Park said in regard to subsidies, I want to say that in this country we have to guard against killing the pride people take in being farmers; that one will not at some later stage get the feeling that city dwellers are saying that farmers are just receiving subsidies.

Will you ask for the subsidy on mealies to be abolished?

To-day he once more wanted the subsidy on mealies to be increased; he requested that, but I prefer to place the emphasis on efficiency. I am prepared to say so on any platform, Sir, and to show him the people who are getting rich at this mealie price as a result of their efficiency. He should not generalize because 8 per cent or 9 per cent of farmers are not achieving success as a result of uneconomic units or their own inefficiency. One should not generalize as a result of that and say that we should subsidize to such an extent that we would eventually be saddled with 200 million bags of mealies whereby we would upset the balance of our entire economy.

The hon. member who has just sat down expressed his appreciation for what the mealie farmers in this country were doing, and as far as that is concerned, I agree with him. I should like to extend that to all farmers in the country, of course, because farmers in general do the most remarkable work in this country. They produce our food; they are having an uphill struggle, but they are doing their work in the best way. Occasionally we do come across a farmer who is inefficient, but on the whole I believe that they are efficient and we want to express our appreciation to all farmers in the country. As far as Langeberg is concerned, I want to convey my best wishes and express the sincere hope that it will be and will always remain a great success. As the hon. member quite rightly said, it is yielding profits at present, and I believe that it will be able to achieve success. I think there was a time when the management apparently was not what it should have been and then other things went wrong. I believe things are better now and consequently I believe that it will achieve success. One would like to know, however, whether it is Government policy to spend a large amount of money each time a cooperative society finds itself in difficulties. This is something I should just like to know. This is a new item. Apparently it is going to be a new policy. We would like the Minister to clarify this point for us. We are not opposed to rendering assistance where it is really necessary to do so.

I want to come back to the mealie prices. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, last month when we already knew that the mealie harvest was going to be a good one, the Chairman of the Mealie Board said, according to Organized Agriculture (translation)—

That was last month. He clearly said that he would do his best to see to it that mealie prices would not be decreased. It seems to me that the Chairman of the Mealie Board is a Dr. Jekyll, because there he stated emphatically that he would do what he could to see to it that mealie prices would not be decreased. He told us about last year’s harvest. I quote to you, Sir, from the Sunday Times, a paper to which he gave an interview—

This is inefficient governing, because there they said, “We gave the farmers more than we should have given them”. They say that openly. That may be a bonus or anything else, but it is an increase in the price of mealies. And here the hon. member said, “We gave them more than we should have given them”. There is something wrong with this Government. It is a highly inefficient Government that will make a remark like that.

What would you have done?

We would have given them their due, but we would not give them more than that and then openly admit that we had given them much too much. The hon. member now confirms the price which was decreased by 20 cents as from last year. As a Member of the House of Assembly he now is a Mr. Hyde, but as Chairman of the Mealie Board he is a Dr. Jekyll. He is not being consistent at all. I do not want to say that according to the farmers the prices should not be increased, because the hon. member for Standerton openly said that he, as a farmer, wanted high prices. [Interjection.] No, that is not natural. As a farmer I want a fair price. If the hon. member thinks that the prices are fair, he should not expect them to be high prices. The Sunday Times said the following—

Reference has been made here to the Director of the South African Agricultural Union—

I am not going to read out what the individual farmer said. These are people who do not farm but who really think that the price ought not to be decreased as a result of the good harvest. We want the position of farmers to be improved. I have mentioned two ways of doing so. The other is to decrease his production costs. To be able to do that, his transport costs must be decreased. This increase in transport costs is excessive and must be decreased. A plan must be made for decreasing his rate of interest. This additional R20 million which he has to pay in increased interest is making it impossible for the farmer. There are many who are efficient farmers. The hon. member for Standerton also pointed out to us here how the position was improving, but in order to bring improved methods home to the farmer, so that he may be able to produce bigger and better harvests all the time, more research has to be conducted and more extension work has to be done. Along these lines he will be enabled to decrease his production costs all the time. That is absolutely essential. Farmers must be trained. Not all farmers are trained. We know that of the number of young farmers who take up farming, only approximately 12 per cent have followed any agricultural course. At present farming is a specialized job. It is no longer what it used to be in earlier days. The farmer must be trained properly and well so that he may be able to keep his production costs down by being more efficient. Our labour force must be trained.

Who has to train them?

The Government has to see to it that the necessary training centres are available for the training of our labour force, so that it may be more efficient, look better after our tractors, and in that way decrease costs. Our system of migratory labour is a bad one. It is an inefficient system. Something must be done about it. The policy of the removal of Bantu also drives up costs to a tremendous degree. In a case which has just been settled a Worcester farmer said (translation)—

Professor Sadie also gave evidence in this case. He too said that wages were increasing tremendously. On the basis of statistical calculations, he anticipated that wages would continue to increase tremendously during the next 25 years. That is because there is a shortage of labour here. I believe that production costs can be decreased. It is the Government’s duty to see to it that that is done. New markets, local as well as overseas, must be sought to decrease surpluses and to ensure greater production. If that were to be done the farmer would be able to make a better living than he is doing at present.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, if there is something with which I want to agree with the hon. members for Newton Park and Gardens that is to thank the Almighty for the prosperous year we have had. I am also grateful to the Government for the steps taken by it to assist the farmers to produce this harvest. In the third place I am grateful to the farmers for having fulfilled their task and for having produced such a good harvest for the country. With that I have agreed as far as I possibly can with the hon. member for Newton Park and with the hon. member who has just sat down.

In the short time at my disposal I want to analyse a few matters, particularly with reference to what the two hon. members opposite said. The hon. member first started with the old story of the cost-plus system. I have repeatedly challenged him to prove that that was contained in the Marketing Act. He always maintained that that was contained in the Marketing Act and that that constituted a violation of the Marketing Act. Time and again and year after year I asked him where that was contained in the Marketing Act. That was the only thing we asked him. Now I want to ask him another question. He must tell me in respect of what product the United Party applied a policy of cost-plus during those years it was in power. The hon. member for Gardens said that the cost-plus system was an old United Party policy. If he addresses this Committee again he must say What product’s price they calculated on a cost-plus basis when they were in power. I want to tell him that there is not one single product in respect of which they even made a calculation of costs when that party was in power—not in one single case. The National Party came forward with a cost-plus policy. If the hon. member examines this year’s mealie price, he will see that that is a cost-plus price. The full costs were taken into account in the determination of the mealie price. If the hon. member examines the basic price he will find that there has been an increase of 10c—from 283c to 293c. Consequently as regards the basic price, there has been an increase of 10c. The plus figure has been included in that calculation. What the hon. member is objecting to is that the Government came forward last year and increased the cost-plus figure, which had been accepted as a basis by the National Party for many years, of account of the circumstances which prevailed in the country and a possibility that mealies would have to be imported. The Government made an upward adjustment. What the hon. member’s argument therefore amounts to is that he is angry with the Government for having made that upward adjustment in the mealie price, an adjustment that was even higher than the actual production costs. The prices of only two products are calculated on a fixed basis and they are mealies and bread grain. Because the Government fixed a price last year which exceeded the cost-plus price, the hon. member for Gardens came forward with the statement that the Government should maintain a stable price.

I did not say that the farmers should not have received the 28½c.

Throughout the years the price of mealies has been calculated on a fixed basis. That basis was also accepted in this year’s price calculation. But because certain circumstances prevailed last year the Government made an upward adjustment in consultation with the Mealie Board.

The hon. member for Gardens referred to certain statements allegedly made by the hon. member for Ladybrand and made out as if the hon. member for Ladybrand was irresponsible. Now I want to ask the bon. member for Gardens whether it will meet with his approval if the Stabilization Fund, a Fund which has been built up over the years by the producers, the consumers and the Government, were to be exhausted completely by an increase in the price to the producer? What is the position of that fund and of the anticipated mealie harvest? The Mealie Board does not make the estimate of the anticipated harvest. That is done by the Economic Research Bureau in conjunction with the farmers. The anticipated harvest figures, calculated in this way, is submitted to the Mealie Board and on the basis of those figures it makes a recommendation of what the price should be. Last year’s estimate was approximately 49 million bags whereas the final figure was 57 million bags. This year’s final figure will be closer to 100 million bags than to the estimated figure. The seventh estimate made by the farmers is usually the final estimate. That is the position each year and the Mealie Board is not to blame for that, because the Mealie Board does not make the estimate. As far as the hon. member for Gardens is concerned, I want to say that I believe that he has never made a study of the mealie industry but nevertheless wants to speak about this industry to-day. As a matter of fact, not one of the hon. members opposite have made a thorough study of this industry.

The hon. member referred to yet another matter, namely the loans granted by the Land Bank and alleged that the increase in such loans was attributable to the fact that theordinary commercial banks no longer had any confidence in the industry. But the hon. member knows that that is not the case. Surely he knows that the increase in the amount put out on loan by the Land Bank is attributable to the fact that the Land Bank has a lower rate of interest. In addition there are farmers who used to have loans with other bodies and persons but who transferred such loans to the Land Bank. [Time expired.]

Listening to the hon. members for Christiana and for Ladybrand quoting many figures about cost-plus and all that, one could not help thinking that when one weighs it all down and when the farmer reads these debates and asks himself what it all amounts to, the answer must be that he is getting less for his product. The farmers’ financial position has not improved, despite all the arguments of hon. members opposite. The farmers’ financial position has not been improved one iota. Therefore none of us on this side of the House can accept the explanations put forward here. It was during this month, the month of April, a warning was issued by the chairman of the African Explosives and Chemical Industry saying—

When I saw this I thought the price of mealies for the producer would be guaranteed for at least another year or possibly two. We see the writing on the wall. Production costs are rising all the time. And here we have a warning that the price of fertilizer is going to rise. Farmers are being told to pay minimum interest rates on bank overdrafts of 8 per cent; most pay 9 per cent and 10 per cent to-day, the reason being to avoid speculation in high land prices. In other words, the Minister of Finance is looking after the interests of land prices. This is why the farmer is being curtailed, and this is why he has to pay a higher rate of interest on overdrafts and bonds. But hon. members opposite are telling us now that the price of mealies has been reduced to avoid this very problem—they want to stop farmers from investing in land, at high prices. Now I want to ask hon. members, whose job is it to look after the increasing rise in land prices? Is it the Mealie Control Board, or is it the Minister of Finance? I am talking to the hon. member for Ladybrand. The excuse he gives for the reduction in the price of mealies is that it is due to the fact that there had been two poor harvesting seasons and that at first it seemed that last year’s harvest would be poor as well. This is why they increased the price. The hon. member for Gardens rightly quoted the hon. member for Ladybrand as having said that the increase of 28½C per bag should never have been given to the farmer last year.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I should like to continue the speech I was making when we adjourned for lunch.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned for lunch I was saying that my colleague the hon. member for Gardens had quoted what the hon. member for Ladybrand had said. I do not want any misunderstanding about this matter. It would appear that there are some members in this House who would like to believe that that was what the hon. member for Gardens said. The hon. member for Ladybrand said that the farmer was given 28½c per bag of maize more than he should have been given last year. This is a very strange statement for the hon. member to have made. Assuming that that was so, I take it that there were many farmers who sold maize last year and who appreciated the fact that they got more than they should have got. The trouble is that now that price of maize has been reduced, it will not necessarily affect the same farmers. If farmers received too much last year, namely 28½c per bag, as the hon. member for Ladybrand said, and the price is reduced this year, it will not affect the same farmers. It could affect a completely different group of farmers. It is only those who will be selling maize this year who will be affected. It is possible that a lot of farmers who were selling maize this year were not paid the extra 28½c last year. It is possible that they did not have much, or no maize at all for sale, due to the drought. If they did receive 28½c too much, did they receive it because there was an election to be fought last year? And now that the election is over he says they have received too much. I am asking the hon. member whether that is not so. The hon. member for Christiana delved into the past; he is in the habit of doing so. He mentioned the year 1948 when Mr. Strauss was Minister of Agriculture.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I want to say that I did not have ten minutes.

Order! The hon. member had six minutes before the lunch adjournment.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I have given a similar ruling on previous occasions.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on a point of order? In the Committee Stage of a Bill we quite understand why a break is counted, because you are only allowed to speak three times, but in a Committee Stage of this nature a member is allowed to speak as often as he likes. Therefore I submit that the break does not count. It has never counted in the past.

It has always counted.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you further on that point of order? The rule provides that one may speak for ten minutes at a time and the time when this hon. member started speaking, started four minutes ago.

The hon. member started at 12.39 and the hon. member demanded a continuation at 2.15, when I wanted to see the hon. member for Harrismith. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that you have afforded me an opportunity of speaking a third time and the Opposition will probably not begrudge me this opportunity now. It strikes me how fear-stricken the Opposition appear to be when we are having an agricultural debate and when someone on the Government side has to follow them. That is, of course, attributable to a guilty conscience, but it is not necessary for me to comment upon that. As regards the statement made by the hon. member who spoke before me that last year’s prices were announced with a view to the election we were going to have at that time, I want to say that I am sorry the hon. member knows so little about agricultural matters. Does he not know that the price was announced after the election had been held? How could we have announced a price before the Mealie Board had made its recommendations and after the election had been held, if that was intended as an election plan? This is one of the many foolish arguments and statements we are always getting from the Opposition.

I come now to a statement made by the hon. member for Newton Park on matters concerning meat, and I want to devote the rest of the time at my disposal to that. He said, inter alia, that the charge was levelled against our Government and Minister that, owing to the fact that we no longer had an agricultural policy, a shortage of meat had allegedly occurred in our country. I want to deny that in the strongest terms, and on the basis of statistics I want to point out, firstly, that millions of rands were made available to the meat and livestock industries during the critical time of the drought in order to save our livestock from being wiped out completely. An amount of R900,000 appears in this year’s Estimates in respect of subsidies on stock feed alone, and the previous year an amount of R800,000 was provided for the sole purpose of transporting stock feed to the drought-stricken areas. In addition an amount of R2 million has been provided on this year’s Estimates in respect of rebates for the purchase of stock feed. I need not mention the amounts for the preceding number of years. Does the fact that this Government has gone out of its way to purchase fodder and to introduce subsidies and rebates in respect thereof serve as proof, as the Opposition wants to suggest, that this Government has no sympathy with the fanner and that we do not have a policy? No policy can be applied for a period of more than five years, because as climatic conditions change and give rise to new requirements, one has to make adjustments and allocate more for this, that or the other. I said that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Newton Park that there was a shortage of meat was nonsensical, and I now just want to mention a few statistics on the basis of the 1964-’65 report. It is quite clear from that report that whereas the tonnage of beef available has decreased slightly, there was such a tremendous increase in regard to mutton that 66 million pounds of mutton were made available in the controlled areas in 1963.

In 1964-’65 it was 75.2 million, which represents an increase of 9 million over a period of one year. In 1965-’66 it was as much as 93 million lbs. Is this proof of shortages? If one looks at the number of pig carcases which were offered during the past year one will see that it has increased tremendously. And then the hon. member alleges that there is a shortage in this respect. Let us have a look at the price structure. Apart from the fact that we had an adequate supply of meat, we sometimes had an oversupply in many of our controlled areas as far as sheep and goat carcases were concerned. If we look at the fixing of prices we shall see that the price of grade I beef over the last few years increased from Rll per 100 lbs. to R16, as it applied last year. I am convinced that we have no cause for concern. Prices will not be reduced during the next financial year. I shall be surprised if they are reduced because the Meat Control Board and our Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing will not allow prices—even if it were guaranteed prices—to be reduced as long as supply and demand can regulate the position. The previous speaker also referred to the mealie price. I just want to say in passing that the hon. the Minister will probably give adequate proof in his reply that those statements are completely unfounded, as has already been done by the hon. member for Ladybrand. What would the Opposition say if the levy funds became exhausted as a result of the price being too high?

As a producer who represents one of our very important meat producing constituencies, a constituency which is also a maize and to some extent a wheat producing area, I shall always welcome it if the highest possible price is made applicable to those commodities, and to dairy products as well. But one cannot fix a price for any commodity in terms of our present marketing systems and in terms of the provisions of the Marketing Act if it will ultimately be to the detriment of that industry. I recall how a year or two ago, when drought conditions prevailed, the Opposition levelled the charge against our Government that there was a shortage of dairy products in this country as a result of a certain policy. Sir, does one hear one single word now from the Opposition about that so-called shortage? Almost throughout the country we find ourselves in the fortunate position to-day that we have enough to feed those animals which have to produce. Now the Opposition is silent. I, am convinced that after this debate has been concluded they will again remain silent for quite a long time, also as far as the so-called shortage of available meat is concerned. I have adequate proof that that is nonsense. Also as regards the other matters they have raised and will still raise they will have nothing to say in two or three years’ time. We have become accustomed to the Opposition presenting distorted statements to the public, not for the benefit of the industry, but only to use those statements as bait to catch a few votes. The last election proved what they gained by their arguments in the past, and that is how things will continue.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Harrismith began his speech by saying that the arguments put forward by the Opposition indicated that they were stricken with fear. I do not know of whom, but I know of what. If the Opposition has any fears, then it is be cause this Government has no steady price and agricultural policy which ensures that agriculture can remain stable. The hon. member spoke of the subsidization of fodder during the last drought and what the Government had done. We are grateful for that, but there was only a certain quantity of fodder available, and no more. As much as there was, so much was there to subsidize. The hon. the Deputy Minister may laugh, but it has never been this Government’s policy to see to it that fodder was stored up in such quantities that it could see us through a drought. There is a total lack of policy. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Harrismith spoke of statistics indicating that there would be no meat shortage. If he knew anything about the industry he would know what the position is in respect of the wool industry this year. He mentioned statistics of 1965. That is two years ago. He does not even know what the drought did to the numbers of our livestock. If he did, he would know that wool production is going to drop by 30,000 or 40,000 bales this year. Does he think that there are more sheep if the production of wool is so much less? We have to take into account the statistics in respect of wool for this month and for the next month. They will indicate that the number of woolbearing sheep has decreased to such an extent. If the hon. member wants to tell me that that is going to be made good by cross-bred sheep, he knows nothing about sheep-breeding.

Talking about sheep-breeding, I now want to deal with and draw the Minister’s attention to the sheep and wool industries. I want to start with wool and then come back to sheep. Wool and its production, its processing and its marketing are something unique in this country. It is not only because it is subject to a different kind of marketing scheme. It is because wool is the only agricultural product in the case of which the absorptive capacity of the domestic market does not affect the price of the product. In the case of citrus, sugar and the wine industry—they all fall under schemes similar to that of the wool industry, and a large proportion of those products are also exported—the domestic price can be protected. But the hon. the Minister, who is a sheep farmer, knows as well as I do that domestic demand has nothing to do with instability in wool prices. The domestic factory does not pay more for wool than the foreign market does. I declare that in that respect and in many other respects the wool industry as such is unique. It has a handicap which the other agricultural products do not have. I am now thinking of the speeches made and the arguments advanced by the hon. members for Ladybrand and Christiana, who spoke about mealie prices. They sought to· justify the decrease of 20c in the mealie price. There is only one way in which to rehabilitate the maize farmer. In good years he has to be paid a good price, and for three consecutive years. In that way he can be rehabilitated.

Inaudible.

If the hon. member for Christiana wants to put a question, he may get up. As far as other products are concerned, I, want to show what provision has been made in the Estimates. This side of the House is grateful that provision is being made therefor in the Estimates. We are grateful that provision to the amount of R21 million is being made for the mealie industry. We are grateful that an amount of R23.5 million is being provided in respect of subsidies for the wheat industry. We are grateful that an amount of R4.6 million is being provided in respect of subsidies for the dairy industry. We are grateful that an amount of R14 million is being provided in respect of artificial fertilizer. A total amount of R62 million is being made available in respect of the products I have just mentioned, which are afforded a large measure of protection at home in that their domestic prices can be pegged. In that way we can ensure that it is profitable to produce them, and their export can also be subsidized. This side of the House appreciates that. A government must be terribly bad if it cannot do that. All the figures I have mentioned here in actual fact have no bearing on the sheep and wool industries. They have very little bearing on those industries. Maize is subsidized if stock have to be fed on maize and if it cap be obtained more cheaply. As far as the extensive areas are concerned, the wheat, dairy and artificial fertilizer subsidies do not apply to the sheep and wool industries.

I know as well as the hon. the Minister does that it is not possible to try and stabilize the price of wool by means of domestic subsidization, but it is possible to give the sheep and wool industries a fillip and to assist them by making available more Government funds for promoting the product. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that the wool farmer in this country pays the Wool Board R4.50 in levy fees on a bale of 300 lbs. in weight, that is to say, 1½ cents per lb., while the maximum paid by the wool farmer in Australia is 2 per cent? In other words, on a bale which is sold for R100 they pay a levy of only R2. The Australian Government subsidizes the levy of R2 on a R-for-R basis to a maximum of R11 million. Can we not get similar facilities for the wool farmer in this country? It is not so easy to keep down the production costs of the wool industry and it is not so easy to restore pastures. I made a plea on a previous occasion already to the hon. the Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, that sheep farmers and wool producers in the Great Karroo should enjoy the same facilities as cattle farmers in the Northern Transvaal. Indeed, the sheep farmers in the Great Karroo need more assistance than the cattle farmers in the Northern Transvaal, because one cannot help the wool industry in the same way as one can help the meat and the cattle-farming industries by subsidizing the price on the domestic market. We have the unhealthy phenomenon to-day that sheep farmers and wool producers, in attempting to rehabilitate themselves, pay up to R10 and R12 for a breeding ewe, which they then graze on pasture which first ought to be rehabilitated. That pasture can only be rehabilitated if it is not grazed for quite some time, but the sheep farmer and the wool producer are in the unfortunate position that there are so far fewer methods of assisting them than there are of assisting the maize farmer and the wheat farmer and the dairy farmer and all the other farmers. In other words, there is no method by which the price of their product can be stabilized on the domestic market.

I should like to devote the few minutes I still have at my disposal to the promotional work being done by the Wool Board. We are concerned at the fact that we are collecting tremendous amounts from the wool farmers at this stage in order to promote the sale of wool, while the price of wool on the world market is declining in spite of the scarcity and the value of the fibre. I do not want to go into the promotional methods we have at our disposal, but we as wool farmers are concerned at the fact that although the price of wool has remained fairly steady over a period of years, the increased costs of production are not taken into account at all. To me that is an extremely unhealthy phenomenon, and I want to repeat that if no special effort is made to give these farmers a chance to rehabilitate themselves, the rural areas will become even further depopulated. The hon. the Minister said in the Other Place yesterday that the decrease in the number of farmers, which we talk about so often, is taking place not so much at the owner level as at the managerial level. [Time expired.]

After the beautiful rains we have had in the country in recent times, it was a pleasure to see a dust storm here this morning about maize prices. In my view it was somewhat misplaced. I am sorry and disappointed that it was not accompanied by shouts of “Vrystaat”, in view of the Opposition’s sudden interest in the maize farmers. In any event, I think what hon. members of the Opposition said here has been adequately replied to, and I do not want to devote any further discussion to that. I think we should appreciate in this House that the maize industry, although it is a most important industry in this country, can also affect agriculture as a whole and that an example set in that connection may have repercussions throughout agriculture for all other commodities. The agricultural industry must therefore be seen in its full perspective. Mr. Chairman, we have mainly two problems in agriculture. The first is crops which fail as a result of our climate, over which we have very little control, and the other is marketing problems as a result of overproduction. I feel it is necessary that we should adopt a very sober and factual approach to these two basic problems, and I want to convey my gratitude to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and his officials for having done so much to reduce these risks in the past years. If one reads the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing one finds that 20 schemes have been established to meet the farmers’ marketing problems by means of various regulatory schemes in the past year, and to assist them in the marketing aspect. It is most important that we should take a sober view of this matter. I think we may perhaps be relying too much on the idea of control and regulatory schemes, and that we should perhaps devote more positive attention to marketing schemes. Even if we only changed that name it would look much better. As far as production is concerned there are surpluses in this country from time to time, and our problem in the agricultural industry is that we cannot adapt ourselves rapidly enough to produce only enough to meet the requirements. We should therefore attune ourselves to producing more than is needed, otherwise we may experience shortages in critical periods. To meet the problem it is necessary that we should export the surpluses that arise, in the first place—this will form a safety valve—and in the second place I think we should attune ourselves to processing. It is therefore most important that these two aspects, exporting and processing our agricultural produce, should enjoy more positive attention. We know that quite a few of our agricultural commodities have built up an export market for themselves through the years and have been largely dependent upon that market, and I think the State should perhaps do more to stabilize those export markets and also to promote the local processing of those products in order that our agricultural produce may be exported in a processed form to a larger extent. On the other hand I think it is the duty of our farmers to organize themselves more and more co-operatively; to bring our primary product to the consumer more and more, at the lowest possible price. I think that a good deal can be done on these lines, not only in the fresh form of the product but also in its processed form. I think that in that regard the State should be of more assistance to us. Not only will it expand our market; it may also encourage important secondary industries in our country and thus expand the marketing field tremendously. I may tell you, as far as overseas marketing and exports are concerned, that it is also a tremendously risky undertaking; that it takes years to build up a market overseas. In this report I notice that as far as avocadoes are concerned—by the way, it is not an “avocado pear” as many people call it; it is an avocado—it enjoys the highest unit price in this country; last year it was sold at an average price of R161 a ton. Farmers are also exporting avocadoes from the country. It is laudable that the farmers are organizing themselves to do so, but I just want to refer to the citrus industry to underline the risks in connection with exports.

In the course of 40 years the citrus industry has built up a world market which extends from Canada to Hong Kong. It is a vital marketing organization which is used as a model, and it is frequently designated as such in international publications as well. Only recently I had the privilege of reading what a periodical in Florida had to say about the fine organization for selling citrus fruit throughout the world. But that market which has been built up and which has been a source of prosperity to a large number of our farmers is at the moment jeopardized by high costs which are not within the control of the farmer. I just want to quote some figures briefly. In 1951 the citrus exchange exported 9,135,000 units of 25 lbs. each, which earned 190 cents a unit on the average, and the cost amounted to 89 cents a unit. The farmer could therefore receive 100.9 cents a unit. In 1966 the yield increased to 20,637,000 units. The gross income was 229.6 cents a unit, but the marketing costs increased to 169.3 cents a unit. The figure had virtually doubled, and the farmer therefore had only 60.3 cents left per unit yielded on the tree. The most important factor in these marketing costs is beyond the control of the farmer, and in particular I want to mention shipping charges. I want to mention that last year the gross return on citrus amounted to R47 million. The overseas costs were R75 million. The earnings in exchange amounted to R27 million. Shipping alone cost R12.8 million. The position is therefore that since 1951 shipping charges have virtually doubled, and at the moment they come to more than 60 cents per unit. This is more than the farmer receives for that unit before his production costs have been deducted. In view of the fact that the farmers have organized themselves and have built up such an important market over many years, and in view of the fact that the situation has arisen that costs beyond their control are jeopardizing the industry, I feel that we can expect positive action on the part of the State to assist these people and that we can ask the State to keep these costs as low as possible by means of bargaining. The citrus industry is a long-term undertaking. A farmer cannot uproot trees, which took 15 years of care to attain full production, and change to some other crop. It is one of the inherent weaknesses in agriculture that it is difficult to change quickly from one product to another in order to meet marketing problems. As far as the citrus industry is concerned, it is certainly necessary that the State should take cognizance of this situation which is arising. If we cannot solve it, the industry may perhaps justifiably approach the State and ask for subsidies, or if not, we shall have to allow these tremendously high costs to strangle the industry gradually, which will be a tragedy. I shall be very grateful if the hon. the Minister could take note of this problem.

I listened to the hon. member for Nelspruit and I was interested in some of the points he made. When he says we should not be concerned about overproduction, it conforms with certain of our thinking, and also when he says that provision should be made for the manufacturing or processing of some of our surplus agricultural products. There I think he is on the right lines. We saw recently that the Minister opened a factory for processing dairy products in the Transvaal. That is certainly a step in the direction which we in the dairy industry welcome. We believe that we have to go for bigger production and that where we have surpluses the plants should be there to process the surplus product. I feel that it is important that in a debate on agriculture the dairy industry should find a place. After all, perhaps second only to the horse, the dairy cow is the most gracious animal which graces the pastoral scene, so I feel that this debate would be incomplete without some reference to the dairy industry.

The dairy industry contributes something like 10 per cent of the gross output of agriculture, which is a very considerable portion of it. Not only that, but it is also a very important product and probably the most important foodstuff we have, and therefore it is an industry which deserves the fullest attention of the Government at all times. Now I must say, having read this report with special reference to the dairy industry, I think we can say that a very good job has been done, and we would like to congratulate the Department on the well-prepared report on the dairy industry. I have said that the Department has an important role to play and I think that the Department has contributed considerably towards building up our dairy industry to the position it occupies to-day. But I think that when we take into account the adverse climate we have in South Africa and the very inadequate prices which the dairyman has received for his products over many years, and certainly when we take into account the Government’s muddling of the price situation in 1962, it stands to the everlasting credit of the dairyman that in spite of all those obstacles and adversities he has been able to build up the dairy industry to the point it has reached to-day. But I say without hesitation that there is always the fear at the back of the dairyman’s mind that if he steps up production, as he is so often called upon to do, the prices may again be decreased. It is this fear that is at the back of his mind, which is one of the most serious retarding factors in the expansion of the dairy industry. I feel it is one of the Government’s most important duties at this critical stage of the dairy industry to remove once and for all this insecurity which is in the mind of the dairyman. Economists all over the world are telling us about the great increase in the population of the world and how the increase in population is exceeding the rate at which food can be produced. Farmers throughout the world are being encouraged to be more efficient and to improve their production. They are being encouraged to be prepared to meet this extra demand which will be made on their resources. I think exactly the same story is applicable to our country. It has been confidently stated that the population of the Republic may reach the 35 million mark by the turn of this century. That means that the dairy farmers, if they want to keep pace with the increased demands for dairy products, will have to be in a position to increase their production no less than threefold. Not only that, but we all know that there is a very large section of our population at present who are unable to buy dairy products because the wages and salaries they draw do not permit them to pay the price charged for milk, butter and cheese. But it is interesting to note that in 1962, when there was an over-production of dairy products in this country, the Dairy Industry Control Board took steps to create a market among the Bantu by subsidizing the price to them, and the demand from the Bantu people alone went up from 8,000 lbs. of butter to over 100,000 lbs. [Interjection.] I say that the decrease in price stimulated demand by the Bantu. I am trying to illustrate what a great potential demand there is for dairy products if these people have sufficient funds to buy them. I believe that that market ultimately will have to be catered for, and that will rest squarely on the shoulders of the dairymen.

It is interesting to note, too, that so far as dairy products are concerned, per capita consumption of butter in South Africa three years ago was something like 6 1b in comparison with 25 1b in Australia. We therefore have a big leeway to make up here in South Africa— we have the potential demand within our borders. The dairyman has to face up to this challenge. He has been told by the Minister and by the Department to provide better management and better stock. I agree with this. It is quite correct to say that the production of our cows—on an average about 400 gallons per cow per lactation—could quite easily be stepped up to an average of 700 gallons per unit with better management, more capital and better feeding.

This brings me to another point. We have had quite an interesting debate here this afternoon about maize during which maize experts had their say. I was alarmed that most of the argument turned round the question of the price of mealies and whether or not we should export, while it was not realized that not enough of our mealie production found its way down the gullets of our dairy cows. And there are hundreds of dairy cows producing below their potential simply because they are not being properly fed.

What is the reason for that?

It therefore alarms the dairyman to see mealies being so readily exported. But I certainly have sufficient confidence in our dairymen, in the dairy cows themselves and if I may say so, in the bulls as well, to meet the challenge. At the same time, however, the Minister should give us the assurance that for the years ahead he will implement a long-term price policy whereby the dairyman can be assured of a reasonable profit margin. We are not asking for higher prices, nor for higher subsidies. All we want is an assurance that the profit margin of the dairyman will remain reasonable and secure. And if such an assurance cannot be given by the other side of the House we on this side of the House are prepared to do it. So we will tell the dairy farmers that if we come to power we are prepared to guarantee them that.

Well, I have made the points I wanted to make and I hope it will be on record shortly what the Government’s long-term policy is going to be in this regard. [Time expired.]

The gist of the arguments raised by the Opposition is the same as usual, namely that the Government is to be held responsible for all the problems with which our farmers are faced. That is the usual and well-known method of attack. However, it has no effect on the outside public, because no one takes any notice of it any longer. My contention is that if it had not been for the exceptional assistance rendered by the State to our drought-stricken farmers over the past number of years, their ability to rehabilitate themselves would not have been what it is at present. Let us rather consider the position of the farmer against the background of his achievements, his struggles and his immediate needs.

South Africa is a vast country, one which in comparison with other countries is sparsely populated. Here we have 18 million souls on 472,359 square miles—in other words, 38.1 per square mile. South Africa represents 7 per cent of the surface of Africa and her population represents 8 per cent of Africa’s population. We have only 90,000 active farmers, including farmers on small holdings. They are nevertheless responsible for 20 per cent of the agricultural production of Africa as a whole, indeed an achievement. This bears testimony to the higher level, the advanced state and the efficiency of the agricultural methods employed by the farmer in South Africa. This also bears testimony to the high potential of our utilizable soil. But yet every day is not always a bright day for the South African farmer. He must have due regard to the unfavourable character of our soil. Large areas are completely useless for any kind of intensive agricultural production. These are the extensive hills and mountain ranges, the Karoo and semi-desert regions.

Two-thirds of our country receives less than 20 inches of rain per annum. As a result of our geography a great deal of water flows away and the rate of evaporation is high. In addition the number of risks with which the South African farmer has to contend is legion. There are, for example, all the pests with which we have to contend—such as the boll-weevil, the wheat-louse, red locusts and red billed finches, parasites, etc. If we do not have to contend with hail or flood damage we have to contend with serious droughts—such as the one in 1933 and the recent drought which was the worst within living memory. And you know, Sir, drought is the biggest single factor in effecting the ruination of a farmer.

As a result of the recent drought our number of cattle was decreased by 269,000, our exports decreased by 5 per cent, our railway revenue decreased by 5 per cent and major losses of foreign exchange were suffered. The contribution of animal husbandry to the national product was decreased by 5.5 per cent. The recent drought brought scores of former well-to-do farmers to their knees whereas it completely ruined hundreds of our farmers who fell in the middle class category. In addition it drove scores of farmers to the cities and young aspirant farmers who should have gone to the agricultural sector never did so because they were put off by the effects of such a protracted drought. The Government of the day did a very great deal to assist the farmer to overcome the period of drought. The hon. member for Harrismith gave an adequate exposition of the measures taken by the Government. It is not necessary for me to repeat that; in any event, those measures are well known and our drought-stricken stock and grain farmers accepted them with gratitude and appreciation.

Fortunately these circumstances have now been changed as in a night of miracles by the unparalleled and penetrating rains which have fallen and continue to fall over vast areas of our fatherland. Surely it is not an everyday occurrence for rains to fall here in the Western Cape and at the same time also in my own Western Transvaal. Most rivers are in flood; creeks, valleys and pans have been changed into unbroken pools of water, irrigation dams are full. The lands are a joy to the eye and are covered with living fields of grain and grass. Record harvests are anticipated. A record harvest of 90 million bags of mealies is anticipated, our stock is in first class condition and the prospects are as good as they have not been for many years. The farmer has once more taken heart. The courage of the South African farmer may be compared, and the Opposition must take cognizance of this, to that of our toughest trees in the drought-stricken Bosveld areas of the North-Western Transvaal which survived the drought. His ability to rehabilitate himself will be like that of our soil which may be compared to those parts of which even scientists said that it would not recover.

We are nevertheless conscious of an undertone of serious concern amongst many of our farmers as a result of their realization of their economic impotence on account of the backward positions in which they find themselves as a result of the drought; they are struggling with the fact that they will not be able to utilize the advantages of this opportunity to the full. They have the green light but the fuel is little and their vehicles of production development are moving forward by fits and starts. Consequently my plea to the Minister and the Government, particularly through their Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, is to be particularly accommodating and indulgent to those farmers who have just arisen from the ruins of this protracted drought.

I also want to make a serious appeal to credit corporations and financial institutions, such as the Land Bank, commercial banks, etc., which have made money available to farmers, to be accommodating to our farmers, or, as the Bantu say, to have a long heart. Do not exercise pressure on them now, but be as indulgent as possible in respect of arrear payments and interests which have to be paid. I also want to address a word to the agents in the commercial sector. Do not mob our farmers now with all your new and more effective implements. First give our farmers a chance to catch their breath. The leeway which they have to make up is large. That cannot be done within a single season of rain.

Working capital is urgently required for rehabilitation purposes and all money cannot now be utilized for the settlement of debts. Finally, a word to our farmers. Remember the lessons this drought has taught us. Implement a Joseph’s policy like never before in respect of the utilization of grazing land and land for crop farming. Implement it in respect of storing fodder and the supplies in your stores and also in respect of spending available capital which you now have at your disposal or which you may obtain from good harvests after the rains. I know that our farmers know their obligations and their responsibilities and that they will meet them as they have always done. They are not asking for donations; they are asking for time and for the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves, to rehabilitate themselves spiritually and economically. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as you must have gathered from the hear-hears that came from this side of the House, we entirely agree with what the hon. member for Marico has said. He certainly has put forward a lot of suggestions which I hope the Minister will take to heart. The hon. member mentioned the terrific crop of mealies due, estimated at 90 million bags, and that the cattle were fat and the veld was good. I want to query this question about the veld being good. Is the veld that good? It might look all right now but I am sure that the hon. the Minister himself knows that there is no depth to that veld. I hope that he and his Department are taking the necessary steps to ensure that when this initial growth has gone, there will be something to assist the farmer. I want to talk further about this excellent report and associate myself with what the hon. member for Walmer said about the quality of this report issued by the Department. I particularly want to refer to a passage on page 1 which reads—

This is a most profound statement. It is something which we on this side of the House have always said, namely that we must encourage local consumption of all our agricultural products. We must find ways to encourage and step up local consumption. There is evidence in this report, dealing particularly with dairy products, that the domestic market has increased and will continue to increase. Consumers in South Africa in 1960-’61 spent R160.6 million on the purchase of dairy products. In 1965-’66 they spent R219.9 million.

This represents an increase over the last five years in regard to the amount spent on dairy products in South Africa of R59.3 million. We find that the largest increase in any one year was during 1965-’66, where an increase of R24.3 million took place.

There was an increase in prices at that time.

The hon. the Minister is quite right that this is accounted for partially by an increase in consumer prices, but the bulk of the increase is on account of increased consumption. I think I must again draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the figures, with which he has provided us, relating to the consumption of butter and cheese. I do not think that it is necessary to mention the figures for cheese. As regards butter alone, in 1963 South Africa consumed 99.8 million pounds of butter and this increased in 1966 to 112.9 million pounds. This shows that this was not only on account of the increased price, but also on account of increased consumption. I am glad that the hon. the Minister accepts this. Of course the increase in population also plays a part and—unfortunately the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has left—it is occasioned by the increased consumption by non-Whites as they progress in wages and development. My personal experience has shown that in the last three years consumption by the Bantu has doubled.

What is wrong with that?

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with it. I do not know if the hon. member is worried. Perhaps he is worried about this increased consumption but I am not—in fact, I welcome it. I am going to ask the Minister to do more to increase this consumption even further. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Walmer who has just pleaded for the same thing. This increase has taken place despite the fact that over the last few years no special effort has been made to promote demand and to increase local consumption. I refer to page 58 of the report where the Department specifically states that no effort was made to develop the local market to the same extent as during previous years. It admits to this because local production was below the figure of local consumption. It goes further, dealing with this question of promotion of consumption by the Bantu, and says: “Although no effort was made to develop the market any further”. In fact we find that there was a drop in sales in the year under review—from 2.2 million pounds to 2.1 million pounds (a drop of 100,000 pounds)—through this scheme which is intended to promote consumption amongst the Bantu particularly. In fact we have found that sales through this scheme have dropped by 104,000 pounds, but overall consumption increased. The demand goes up all the time. With the drought, production decreased, but it can be expected that this will now increase. How much the demand will increase, we cannot tell, especially with an intensification of promotional undertakings. Here I want to congratulate the various bodies controlling dairy products in this country, for the promotional undertakings they have established and launched. I wish them success. As I said earlier, this side of the House has always advocated an increase in local consumption of products. I want to come back to the report, where we find on page 8 a statement which reads as follows:

We agree entirely with this, but we find that local production is only supplying approximately 75 per cent of the local consumption in dairy products. I mentioned earlier the figures in regard to the consumption of butter. The hon. the Minister is aware of these figures. I think all hon. members are aware of them. There is no need for me to repeat them. There is firstly, as I have shown, an increase in the demand for dairy products. This is progressive. This is a point I should like to make. We have had this fantastic increase in the demand over the last two or three years. It is progressive, and it is going to continue to grow. The hon. member for Walmer pointed out that we are being perpetually warned from outside the country about the population explosion and about the shortage of food which is going to occur throughout the world. We must do something about finding a solution in this country, to be able to produce our own food. Secondly there is a shortfall, as I have shown, in local production. I admit that it will increase with the ending of this drought. Let us aim for this optimal production and encourage and foster a greater local consumption. Let us not—I appeal to the hon. the Minister—repeat the retrogressive policy this Government adopted when peak production was last reached in 1961-’62. As the hon. member for Walmer pointed out, at that stage they reduced the price, and immediately production fell. Production did not only fall when the drought started. It had already started on its downward trend before the drought hit us in 1964. It fell immediately to below the domestic consumption. This has aggravated the position. If this had not taken place, production would have retained a figure where we need not have delayed or held back the advertising of these products.

Mr. Chairman, I think I must now reply to the few ideas which have been exchanged here. Later on I can avail myself of an opportunity of saying something in regard to other matters. The hon. members on the opposite side who have just finished speaking spoke about our dairy industry. The fact that they used a major part of their speeches to quote from a report of the Department, a report which indicates what progress the dairy industry in our country has made with its difficulties and problems, and in which its future marketing possibilities are mentioned, shows us that the Department is wide awake and realizes what is going on in this industry. Almost the entire speech which the hon. member made was devoted to the Report issued by the Department. I agree with hon. members that the dairy industry is basically a very important industry in South Africa and that it produces a commodity which is a very important source of nutrition for our population. The hon. member quoted certain figures to prove what our marketing patterns in the dairy industry had been in the past, and how we had brought about a gradual increase in the use of dairy products in this country. That, of course, happened because of the reasons which he mentioned, i.e. that a large portion of our population had been granted better wages and that in general there had been increased consumption. I wonder whether hon. members were struck by the fact that, in the figures which he quoted, the greatest increase in consumption took place at precisely the same time there was a major decrease in the price. That shows the hon. member what kind of problem one has to deal with. We have a certain consumption and we have a certain demand, but we have the demand at a certain price. The hon. member for Walmer said: We do not want higher prices and we do not want higher subsidies. If we do not subsidize, in what other way can we promote consumption on the part of that person who cannot pay that price? We have a certain consumption at a certain price. The product is available at a certain price. Sometimes, when there is a small shortage, on account of drought for example, we import the product. The product was available to the public. A certain quantity of that product was absorbed by the consumers at that price. That inevitably means that if we want to have greater quantities of that product absorbed by the consumer we must do something to the price. We must then lower the price for the consumer. That means one of two things: a lower producers’ price or a higher subsidy. However, the hon. member has said that they do not want that, interjections.] I am not saying that the producer must accept a lower price. We are so ready to draw comparisons between production patterns of different periods of time. I said here on a former occasion that our dairy production is as inclement as the weather. When it is dry, it decreases, and when it rains, it increases tremendously. That same decrease in the production, which the hon. member indicated in respect of 1964, was compensated for by a one month’s increase in 1967. The increase in that month constituted a much greater percentage than the decrease which he mentioned. I gave him the figures in the last no-confidence debate. In one month, from 15th January to the next month, the butter production rose from 577,000 lbs. to 940,000 lbs. That was an increase of 70 or 80 per cent in one week in comparison with one week during the previous year.

Of course it is in our own interests to build up a sound dairy industry, he hon. member said that there were going to be 80 million people in South Africa—I think he said that that would be the position at the end of the century. In the meantime we have the market which we have at present. At those prices we do not have a greater market than the one we have at present. It is now being said that we must take steps in regard to surpluses. The Government is doing so by paying subsidies on butter and powdered milk. However, the production is sometimes greater than the consumption at those prices. Those products must be sold in some way or other. It must be sold abroad or at home at a lower price. It will not be bought if it is not sold at a lower price. I want to know how the hon. member calculates the matter. There is a quantity which people are prepared to buy at a certain price. More than that quantity they are not prepared to buy. But there is an additional quantity which has to be sold. How will we get it sold if we do not lower the prices? We can lower the prices by subsidizing it to the consumer. If production increases, as it increased in the year to which the hon. member referred, we are faced by the situation that, notwithstanding all the attempts which are made, we still cannot sell certain of the products such as butter. Then we have to sell them on the overseas market. We have to sell that product in competition with countries which have a very efficient dairy industry, for example New Zealand and Australia, as well as others. The first important requirement—this is one of the problems the Department has to deal with— is to see to it, with the co-operation of the producer in South Africa, that our dairy industry is carried on in the most efficient way possible. We cannot merely give a price to ensure that any person producing dairy products receives a paying price. If we do so we will never be in the position to satisfy the demand to which the hon. member referred. In that case we will not, at that price, be able to compete with the rest of the world. That is our whole task in the dairy industry. It must not only be the task of the Agricultural Department with its economic and other instruction; it must also be the task of the farmers active in that industry to display the greatest measure of efficiency, otherwise they will never be able to meet that competition. I do not think that anybody would differ from us. But no government can give an undertaking that apart from the quantity of dairy products produced in South Africa and apart from the possibility of marketing that product, at home or abroad, it will never reduce the price of dairy products. That is a promise which I cannot give, nor can anybody else. The United Party may perhaps be able to make a promise like that because it reckons that it will never be asked to carry it out. If one is dealing with marketing one must take the facts into account. One can employ all these methods to ensure better marketing and to find more people to make use of one’s product, but in the long run one has to deliver that product at a lower price which is the one the consumer is prepared to pay.

Mr. Chairman, I want to give the hon. member for East London (City) a piece of very good advice:

When he participates in debates here he should not speak as a politician, he should rather speak as a farmer as he did to-day, then one could listen to him. The dear Lord knows that if he wants to behave like a politician then no man can listen to him.

The same applies to you.

I think that the hon. member put a good case on behalf of the wool industry in South Africa. There was a time when our wool farmers were receiving high prices and when hon. members on this side of the House referred to members on this side as wool barons and insinuated that they were in an exceptionally favourable position as compared with other people. But I want to agree with the hon. member that overseas wool prices to-day are not as favourable, and that one cannot make as great a profit out of wool farming as it was possible to make in the past, even at the increased prices. Perhaps the hon. member made out a good case for a revision of the position of the wool farmer who has always, throughout the years, paid for his own publicity. The situation could perhaps arise that the Government may be obliged, in the interests of this industry which is carried out in large parts of our country where very little else can be produced, to lend assistance at one stage or another, not assistance in the form of a subsidy, but assistance in the form of publicity, etc. I must tell the hon. member that in my opinion he made out a good case on behalf of the wool farmers. That is something which one will have to consider.

There are two other matters in particular which were raised here and to which I want to reply. The first is the question asked by the hon. member for Gardens in regard to the amount which is being requested here for the Langeberg Co-operative. The hon. member asked whether it was now the policy of this Government, arising out of this R1.5 million which is being made available for Langeberg, to help every co-operative which finds itself in difficulties. Of course it is not the policy of this Government to help every co-operative which has found itself in difficulties. It depends solely upon the circumstances, and for what reasons the co-operative landed itself with those problems. If the Government were to lay down as policy that it would give the undertaking that it was going to help every co-operative which found itself in difficulties, then I do not know where it is all going to end. I should just like to explain to the Committee why Langeberg received this special assistance from the State, and in order to be able to do so I shall have to go back a little in history. Of course hon. members know that Langeberg is responsible for canning plus minus 40 per cent of all the canned fruit in South Africa. There was a time when it canned a greater percentage. Langeberg’s share in the canning industry is more than 40 per cent. Hon. members will know that the Langeberg Co-operative came into being in the Western Province. Initially it concentrated on the canning of deciduous fruit produced here in the Western Province, but gradually it expanded and later on it also canned pineapples in the Eastern Cape, in Port Elizabeth and East London. This fruit was all deposited in one pool and was all sold from one pool and the profits or the losses were divided out amongst the various participants from that pool. Of course the position was also that the private canner, who did not belong to a co-operative, could select the people who delivered fruit to him by means of contracts. But since Langeberg was a cooperative society, it meant that it had to accommodate the other remaining producers, its members and others. It was particularly the case in the pineapple industry, which requires a great deal of heavy transport, that the factories in the immediate vicinity offered better prices to the producers around them than they did to the producers who were further away, with the result that Langeberg was obliged to handle more of the products of producers which were further away from the factory, and then pay the railage. Hon. members probably all know that the pineapple market collapsed, particularly the overseas market. During that time Langeberg really performed a stabilizing function in the canning industry, with the result that it suffered losses as a result of the prices at which it had to buy up the fruit. If one had had to recover those losses, the pool losses which it had brought upon itself, by means of liquidation, it would have meant that one would have had to recover those losses from the individual producers according to the quantities which they had delivered to the co-operative. At that stage the Government came forward and gave the Land Bank a guarantee to pay out advance prices to those producers for buying up their products. With the further collapse of the market Langeberg could of course not sell those products at a profit; it had to sell at a loss and in reality if suffered a general pool loss of R4.5 million on that fruit. The Government was then faced with the choice of withdrawing its guarantee, which would have meant that Langeberg would have had to be liquidated, and if Langeberg had had to be liquidated then the farmers would have been assessed individually, according to their deliveries, and would have had to pay back that money to the Land Bank, with the result that a number of the fruit farmers and particularly the pineapple farmers of the Eastern Cape would have had to be bought out. Apart from the fact that liquidation would have been a heavy blow to the farmers, it would also have meant that 40 per cent of the canning facilities of South Africa would have been thrown on the market simultaneously and that it would have had to be taken over at a tremendously low price by other manufacturers, and those other manufacturers would not necessarily have been manufacturers who had been active in the fruit industry in South Africa. It could have been manufacturers from other countries which would have bought at a low price here, and that would have meant that our own manufacturers, who were not co-operative societies, would have had to compete against that 40 per cent investment which other people would have been able to acquire at a low price, and the entire canning industry would have suffered as a result. The Government subsequently took steps to try and improve the entire position of Langeberg. There were a few commercial banks with mortgages, and there was the Government’s guarantee. In conjunction with the management of Langeberg, steps were then taken to reduce its large management to a minimum of nine. In addition it was agreed that they would impose certain levies on their members in order to strengthen their capital. Negotiations were held with the commercial banks which wrote off their loans to Langeberg, and the position did improve in the interim. But the fact still remained that if they were to be held responsible for the pool losses of R4.5 million, it would ultimately have meant that their burden of interest would have been so high that they would not have been able to build up capital for further improvements to the industry. Then the Government decided, for all the reasons which I have mentioned, to write off R1.5 million of the guarantee so that Langeberg would have a chance of rehabilitating in future and taking up the position which it ought to take up in our canning industry.

The second matter to which I should like to refer is the remarks made by the hon. members in regard to the change in the mealie price and the accusation which was made that in the very first year the mealie farmers had a good crop, the Government is going to come forward with a decrease in the price of mealies. Let us go into the history of last year’s prices a little. The hon. member for Ladybrand referred to it. Last year, after the normal basic calculation of expenses and the adjustments had been made, the Mealie Board proposed that there should be an upward adjustment of 28.5 cents above that price which had to be paid to the farmers. At that time the basis of the calculation made by the Mealie Board was a crop of 48 million bags. That was, according to many people in this country, a poor crop. The Government felt that, because the farmers had had a few bad years and were being faced with another one, the mealie industry would have to receive special support and that is why it accepted that upward adjustment of 28.5 cents in order by so doing to afford the mealie farmer an opportunity of earning a better income. The hon. member for Gardens said that they were receiving too much. [Interjections.] The fact remains that on the basis of the calculation they did in fact receive too much, so as to meet the situation which arose in the industry. Now the hon. member is saying that it was wrong to have done so; one must give them the correct price. But it is not only in the case of the mealie industry that we did things like this. We also did it for other industries. We did it for the stock industry by subsidized fodder available; it was necessary because of the drought. Last year we gave the mealie farmers that extra amount under the same circumstances.

We did not object to that.

The hon. member did not say that they had received too much, but he did say that in a normal year they would be receiving too much. I am just mentioning examples where that has been done. This upward adjustment above the basis for the mealie price meant that last year—with the crop which was furthermore not 48 million bags, but 57 million bags, the second greatest crop which South Africa had ever had—the income of the mealie farmer amounted to R191 million. That was their gross income. It was R2 million less than the income for the record year 1963. That is what they then received because of this adjustment, because in 1963, with the greater crop the farmer had to contribute 18 cents towards the Stabilization Fund. [Interjection.] I shall come to the production costs as compared with last year.

We come now to this year’s crop. This crop is estimated at 87 million bags, and with the price at 330 cents per bag, in other words, with that increase of 20 cents last year, by way of special contribution, it still means that the mealie farmers’ gross income this year is going to be R291 million. In other words, it will be a gross income of R100 million more than in the best year which they ever had in the history of South Africa. Nobody begrudges them that. That is on an estimate of 87 million bags, but it could be considerably more. The actual increase in costs, without upward adjustments, of the industry, was to the amount of 12.3 cents in comparison with last year.

They then came forward with two adjustments, an increased adjustment on land prices this year and an even higher adjustment, which they called an upward adjustment, on the same basis as for the good year. The Government’s attitude is that one cannot, in a year such as this, when the income of the industry has increased by R100 million, make upward adjustments over and above the basic price, as was done last year under difficult circumstances, for if one has to make the adjustment approximately 20 cents will have to come out of the pocket of the taxpayer, or out of the Stabilization Fund, or out of the pocket of the consumer. It will have to come out of one of those three pockets. Where an industry finds itself in a position such as the one in which the mealie industry found itself this year, it is not fair to take that money from the taxpayer’s pocket and subsidize the mealie industry by means of an upward adjustment. Nor is it fair to take it from the pocket of the consumer for the purpose of making an upward adjustment. Now the hon. member for East London (City) can ask me why it should not be taken from the Stabilization Fund, but he must remember that in this year, although there has been a great crop and the income is R290 million, R100 million more than in the record year, the mealie farmer does not contribute a single cent to the Stabilization Fund, because that fund is strong. But one cannot go ahead and exhaust the Stabilization Fund in one year or weaken it to such an extent that, in the world circumstances prevailing to-day, one does not know where one is going. The crop could easily be more than 87 million bags, so that the export surplus will be even greater. But apart from that, the overseas price has already dropped considerably since the Mealie Board recommended this price. Take the world production. Argentine, which has been absent from the export market for years, has great surpluses to export this year. South Africa and Rhodesia alone have more than 40 million bags which they must export. Other countries which are competing on the export market all have large crops. France, which does not normally export, also has a large surplus which will come on the European Common Market. It would therefore be shortsighted to exhaust the Stabilization Fund this year to such an extent that if one has a reasonable crop again next year one will have to make the stabilization levy so high that the farmers gross income will be reduced.

May I ask a question? The Minister says there are three methods of doing this. Cannot one succeed in doing so using all three methods jointly?

The hon. member ought to know that it would be possible to do so using all three methods jointly. I thought he had enough sense to understand it. Surely it is obvious that it is possible to do so using all three methods jointly. Three people cannot do everything together, but there are certain things they can do together. [Laughter.] That is the reason why the Government has decided not to accept the Mealie Board’s recommendation for this year. It has done so because it has had the upward adjustment for the two aspects, i.e. the upward adjustment for the land values, and the other is merely an upward adjustment as was proposed last year. Surely the Government cannot go on taking money from the taxpayers’ pockets to make upward adjustments each year. It is now being suggested that the Government should make upward adjustments in poor years in order to support the industry, but that in good years upward adjustments should also be made in order to improve the industry’s position. That means that upward adjustments will continually be made and that the industry will never return to normal. The gross income of th· mealie farmers last year—and I am basing my figures on the number of morgen and the production—was R35.50 per morgen. On the same basis their income this year will be R47.50 per morgen at this price. In other words, there has been an increase of R12 per morgen in the gross income of the producer this year. That is why it is not fair to make even more upward adjustments this year in order to support the industry even further. That then is the Government’s attitude in respect of the mealie price. We feel that where there is such a large income this sort of encouragement should not be given because in this industry the entire economic structure can also change as a result of changes in land prices, etc., phenomena which will occur in any case during this period.

Mr. Chairman, if hon. members feel that an exception should but made only in respect of the mealie industry, if upward adjustments should be made only in respect of this industry in good times, then I want to ask them why they are only thinking of the mealie industry? Why are they not thinking of the other industries in South Africa? They want upward adjustments to be made in respect of the mealie industry, which now has a fixed price, and they want that to be done because there has been such a large crop, because the production is so high. But let us consider what the position is in regard to the other farmers, who must also be rehabilitated. The hon. member for East London (City) also went through the drought. His wool production also decreased but will increase again next year owing to the fine grazing which he will now have. Should I also make an upward adjustment in the good year for him, i.e. for the wool industry?

You are doing it with the meat industry in any case.

No, not with the meat industry. I shall come to the meat industry in a moment. Last year the supply of meat was relatively small, with the result that meat prices in many cases rose above the floor price. This year it is possible that there will be a greater supply on the market. There is now a tremendously great supply on the market. Must the Government make an upward adjustment for the sheep farmer whose mutton is now being bought up at floor price so that he can receive the prices he received last year? That is the effect of the upward adjustment.

We can consider another product which is also being produced in those areas, and which does not fall under the same fixed price control, i.e. potatoes. There are farmers who are, in many cases, producing potatoes in those same regions. Last year they received tremendously high prices at a time when few potatoes were being produced. This year their producduction has been increased by between 200 and 300 per cent. But now the price will fall. Should we now make an upward adjustment for those farmers by granting them some subsidy or other? If this is not to be done in regard to all the industries, why should one industry be singled out and why should adjustments be made for that one only? If one industry is singled out and treated in this way, the economic equilibrium of that industry in relation to other industries in South Africa is disturbed—its production is encouraged at the expense of other industries. Surely we cannot do that, particularly in a year when the position is such as I have mentioned. That is of course the reason why we cannot approve this price increase.

There are other points which I shall discuss later, but I think that I have more or less replied to the basic aspects which I wanted to discuss.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has referred to three matters here. He spoke about the question of assistance to the Langeberg Co-operative; the question of the dairy price policy; and lastly, the question of the latest mealie price determination.

As regards the question of aid to the Langeberg Co-operative, the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) put a question to the Minister about this matter—he did not condemn the assistance—and the Minister has given us a lengthy explanation of why it was necessary. As the Minister knows most of the pineapple producers in the country are situated either in my constituency or else very close to it. I realize what difficulties they have had, difficulties when the canned export market collapsed. At the same time Langeberg were expanding their activities considerably and were buying up factories. In the process there was perhaps not as much efficiency on the part of the Langeberg direction as there might have been and they perhaps over-expanded. We on this side are well aware of those difficulties and, as I say, the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) did not criticize this particular item. [Interjection.] Yes, he asked you a question to which you gave a reply. I would like that to be on record. I think that it is right that Langeberg should be given a chance to put their house in order and I think the indications are that they are putting their house in order. I will only say this. These particular forms of assistance to a particular sector of an industry should not be something which is of a regular nature. There should indeed be progress towards putting the house of Langeberg in order because, apart from anything else, it is a very important sector of our canning industry, and it is essential in the interests of all that they should put themselves on an efficient basis.

As regards the second point, when the Minister was replying to the hon. member for Walmer who had asked why consumption had gone up, the Minister said that the reason was that the price had been decreased. It is quite correct: It was because the price had been decreased, but it was because the consumer’s price had been decreased …

Yes.

… but what the Minister failed to add was that that was complete reversal of the policy that had obtained in 1961-’62. Then big surpluses were built up and were shunted off overseas and sold there at the expense of the Stabilization Fund. Subsequent to that it was the producer’s price that was decreased by the hon. gentleman, and we know very well why it happened that the production of dairy products dropped immediately.

But the consumer’s price was also decreased at the same time.

Yes, and you also assisted with a subsidy. One of the important points I wish to stress is that we should try to increase our home consumption always rather than shunt these products off to the overseas market at a loss to the producer’s Stabilization Fund.

I want to come to the last point, namely the question of the mealie price decrease which the Minister has imposed this year. Before I deal with the Minister’s argument, I want to say that I feel genuinely sorry to-day for the hon. member for Ladybrand. It is a genuine sympathy I feel for the hon. member, Sir, because I have always had a high regard for the hon. gentleman. I have regarded him as a reasonable, honourable and honest person, and I think he is being placed in a very invidious position, having to attempt to justify the actions of his Minister in this matter, actions which cannot be justfied, despite the Minister’s attempted explanation. The Minister in this connection has talked of upward adjustments and downward adjustments. He did not even mention the possibility of keeping the price at last year’s level. Let us get back to the position of the hon. member for Ladybrand, who, as hon. members know, is the Chairman of the Mealie Board. That is a body of responsible people, not merely producers, although producers have the majority on that body, a body of responsible men with consumer representatives as well. Before they come to the Minister to make a price recommendation they deliberate about what the price should be. In this particular instance the South African Agricultural Union recommended quite a substantial price increase. The board, one understands, recommended either a small increase or a general price more or less the same as it had been the year before. When responsible gentlemen such as these recommend either a small increase or that the producer’s price should remain the same, surely no one is going to accuse them of chancing their arm in the matter. I believe in the bona fides of the hon. member for Ladybrand and he must have believed that he had a good case, when he put that case to the Minister in his capacity as Chairman of the Mealie Board with his colleagues who accompanied him to the Minister. The hon. member for Newton Park says that they came to see him again. Despite the fact that at that stage he believed that he had a very good case to put on behalf of the mealie producers of the country to the hon. the Minister, when the Minister had turned down his recommendations and said, “No, I am going to reduce the price by approximately 20 cents”, we find to-day that, in these few weeks, the hon. member for Ladybrand has suddenly discovered that his original representations were not very sound after all and that now the Minister is right. The hon. gentleman has been referred to as a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the mealie industry. I think that the trouble in this particular case is that the hon. gentleman during his negotiations has encountered the Minister, whom I would also like to refer to in fictional terms, but in rather more modern terms, namely in terms of one of Ian Fleming’s books. I think that the hon. the Minister when it comes to price determinations is very much a Dr. No, because when the marketing boards come to the Minister they receive one of three replies, “No, I will not give you the higher price you ask for, but I will give you a slightly higher price”, or “No, I will not give you any price increase at all. I will keep the price where it was”. Or, as has been the case in this particular instance, his reply is, “No, I will not give you a price increase, I will reduce the price”, despite the fact that costs have been increasing all the time. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the hon. member for Ladybrand in slightly kinder terms than the phrase “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”. He referred to him as somebody who in this matter of price determination has a split personality. I think that most of the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House seem to have split personalities, because when the hon. member for Newton Park was talking about production cost increases, and I think he was referring in particular to the mealie industry, there were shouts from the other side of the House and interjections of “kaf, dis nie waar nie”, and “onsin”. One of the first speakers to get up on that side of the House was the hon. member for Christiana who said that there were indeed cost increases and he said that an allowance of ten cents had been made to counter the cost increases. The hon. the Minister referred to an allowance being made for cost increases as well. Mr. Chairman, how can any hon. member on that side of the House fail to believe that we are having cost increases when they know what the hon. the Minister’s colleague, the hon. the Minister of Transport, did to them last year as regards imposing cost increases on the industry. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it stands to reason that every hon. member, who represents a constituency where maize is the principal crop grown, would like to see a higher price for maize. What is more, every representative of such a constituency would like to see an annual increase in respect of the principal product cultivated in his constituency. That stands to reason. Therefore this is perhaps wishful thinking, but everybody would like to see that. We know that we are charged with governing this country. We, who are sitting in this House of Assembly, have a responsible task to carry out. We cannot say irresponsible things and merely speak negatively. That is the difference between a representative of a constituency on the National Party side of the House, and a representative of a constituency on the Opposition side of this House. Opposition speakers may carry on in a very irresponsible manner. They may say things which are popular for the time being. They may seek popularity, because theirs is not the responsible task of formulating this policy and of implementing a realistic policy. I sat here listening, and I heard criticism being raised. I do not blame hon. members for criticizing where criticism is justified. I listened in order to hear whether we would be given something constructive as a substitute for what this Government is doing, which, according to them, is wrong. I did not hear anybody advancing a constructive, positive policy or making a contribution. It is easy to say: “You should do this and you should not do that.” It is very obvious to me that the attempt made here by the hon. member for Newton Park was not aimed at serving agriculture or rendering a constructive contribution to effecting a better agricultural policy. His attempt was aimed exclusively at making some political capital out of this. His attempt was aimed at that. He definitely does not represent a constituency where maize is being cultivated. The hon. member who is sitting over there, namely the hon. member for Sea Point, does not represent an agricultural constituency. The best proof is the fact that the farming community have rejected the United Party. Not only did they not trust them with policy in South Africa, but they did not trust them with agriculture in South Africa either. That is why we have a number of United Party members in this House—some of whom are farmers themselves—who do not represent themselves here. They represent the interests of the constituencies they are representing here. That is why I say that it is for the farmer himself to decide what party he trusts with his affairs at present and will trust with them in the future.

Who is talking politics now?

I have never apologized for the politics I talk, but that hon. member does in fact still owe this House an apology, or an explanation, for a remark he passed here to encourage theft in this country. I, expected him to avail himself of this opportunity, on this Vote, to put that matter right. I have already referred to that on a previous occasion.

I do not think that there is anything else which is quite as prone to natural disasters as is the case with the agricultural industry in South Africa. We are grateful to be able to say that there is great sympathy for the agricultural industry in South Africa and for the farmer. Whether we are farmers or townspeople, we all realize the importance of the task and the function of agriculture in South Africa. It is of national importance, and that is why I think that we should not try to make political capital out of it. At present we have an agricultural policy which is based mainly on four principles. In the first place, it is based on the retention of private enterprise. I want to plead that we should never exclude this principle from our agricultural policy. We must retain that innate pride of the farmer. We do not want to make a public servant out of him; he must remain an individualist. We want to retain that private enterprise amongst farmers, that pride in being farmers.

In the second place, this policy is aimed at making the best use of our natural resources as well as our available manpower. This principle on which this policy is based, is just as important. In the third place, I want to mention that our policy is not only based on effective production, but also on preserving our soil at all times. In this respect I, also want to plead that we in this House—-I may not discuss Agricultural Technical Services now, but I may bring it in—should see to it that the aim of all agriculture should be to avoid exploitational cropping. For that reason it is necessary for us to have a sound agricultural policy in South Africa, so that we may also enable the farmer to make a living, without forcing him to apply exploitational cropping. Then I want to say that I mentioned this here last year, and I want to mention it again this year, namely that our research in respect of agriculture should be aimed at seeking ways and means of keeping production costs low. We do not want to price a product or a commodity marketed by us, above its economic value. We cannot do that. We do not want to come into conflict with economic laws. That is why it should always be our aim to keep production costs as low as possible and, in doing so, also to enable the agriculturalist to keep our soil valuable. [Interjection.] That hon. member, who is so fond of making interjections now, ought to rise here and tell us what policy the United Party will apply, whether they would not have retained the price of meat this year, and whether they would then have been able to convince the country that they could do so. The hon. member can say that in an irresponsible manner, because he has not been charged with the task of putting that into practice. If I understood that hon. member—along with the hon. member for Gardens—correctly, he also accepted and held up the formula of price determinations, namely production costs plus a reasonable entrepreneur’s wage. He said that it would not be necessary then to add that 284 cents. He says he did not say so. That is the way I understood him. If words have any meaning, then I do not know how I am to understand him. He advocated the following formula, namely production costs, entrepreneur’s wage plus an upward adjustment of 284· cents last year. That was not a right to which the producer could lay any claims, but certain factors were taken into account—because it was a smaller crop— and when the price was determined, the estimate was still 9 million bags lower than the actual crop. That is why that upward adjustment was made. As I said at the beginning, as much as we would have liked to have maintained that price, we also realized under these circumstances that a responsible Government and a responsible Minister had to act the way they did, as the Minister has just set out and explained very clearly.

As I have said, the third point of policy is the preservation of our soil; we should not implement a short-term policy whereby we shall exhaust the soil of South Africa, enrich ourselves in that process and then leave to the generations after us an impoverished heritage. It will remain our task in this country to feed a generation that increases by 200,000 a year. That is the task which is being imposed on agriculture.

In the fourth place, this policy is aimed at effecting a decent standard of living for the farmer and his family. I am very glad that the agriculturist, the farmer, is also taking his rightful place in our national economy and that he is being enabled to implement this policy. To implement this, it is necessary for us to have a large measure of co-ordination among the various agricultural departments. We are grateful to be able to say that this Government instituted the Agricultural Advisory Board, which maintains liaison, on the highest level possible, with all interested parties in the agricultural industry, namely the Secretariat of the various Agricultural Departments and organized agriculture. We are very grateful to know that we have a Cabinet Committee which consists of the three Ministers of Agriculture, namely Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Agricultural Technical Services and Water Affairs and Forestry. We are grateful for the possibility of implementing that policy.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on a few allegations that were made here. The hon. member for East London (North) said that earlier in the day I had supposedly said that farmers were receiving 28½ cents too much for a bag of maize. That is not the truth. I said that last year the farmers received 28½ cents more than what the production costs plus entrepreneur’s wage amounted to. That is quite different from the way he is putting it.

Then the hon. member for Gardens, as well as the hon. member for Albany, suggested that I was blowing hot and cold. The hon. member for Gardens read out to us what appeared in Organized Agriculture, namely that I had supposedly said that I would see to it that a large slice would be taken out of the Stabilization Fund. As far as that is concerned, I kept my word, because a tremendously large slice will be taken from the Stabilization Fund as a result of these export losses. The farmers do not contribute anything to the export losses sustained on this large crop. As regards the other part, you can deduce for yourself what I said, because that is what I had reputedly said at the Kroonstad Maize Congress. Here I have Die Landbouweekblad, and the following is what it says about the price of maize (translation)—

There I also told the farmers that with such a large crop on hand and with such a large export surplus, they could feel pleased if the price remained as it was, because they suggested higher prices there. Then I told them that, if they could only get the same price, they could all shake hands with themselves. They were aware of the fact that there would possibly be a downward trend in the price.

Now I come to the hon. member for Newton Park. He said that weather conditions should not have an effect on produce prices.

That is exactly what is happening.

No, he said that weather conditions should not have an effect on produce prices. He said that the Government pushed up prices during droughts, but did not bring them down when there were good rains; in other words, in his opinion weather conditions should have no effect on the price of a product. That is what I concluded from what he had said. In other words, if our Government had to follow the principle suggested by the hon. member for Newton Park, the farmers should not have been given 28y cents per bag last year. That was given under drought conditions which prevailed during the previous two years and on the assumption that the crop would not have been as big as it actually was. That is why the Government agreed to granting that 28½ cents per bag last year. But if we were to follow the policy of the United Party, the price would have had to remain at 321 cents per bag and no increase or upward adjustments would have been effected.

Then I come to the hon. member for East London (City). I am sorry that he is not present at the moment. The position is that he said that farmers wanted stable prices. When farmers have to have stable prices, it means that, when there are droughts, the price has to remain the same. One should not take into account the fact that, as a result of the small crop, his production costs increased. Then the price has to remain the same. That is a stable price. Reference was also made to a stable income. If income has to remain stable, it would mean that this year’s price would have to be reduced considerably to keep the income of maize farmers at R193 million, as against the R293 million they will receive this year. With a “stable income”, do they mean that the price should remain more or less the same in the aggregate for the farming community? Mr. Chairman, hon. members on that side of the House talk about the Marketing Act, but they do not want to implement the Marketing Act as it ought to be done. The Marketing Act refers to orderly marketing, but if the Government were to implement what the Opposition advocates, then there will not be any orderly marketing. The Opposition are quite content just as long as they are able to tell the rural areas that they fought for higher prices here in this House, but they do not care two hoots about what is to become of the surplus product. As I have already said, there is at present a downward trend in prices on the world market. Over the past few weeks the price has dropped by 40 cents to 50 cents per bag. Surely, this is a factor that we must take into account. We must take into account the effect of an increased price on the Stabilization Fund if we have to export at a loss. This year the Argentine is going to have the biggest crop it has ever had. The latest news I have received, is that the Argentine is going to export 80 million bags this year. Brazil, a country which has seldom exported maize, is going to export maize this year; Mexico, too, is going to export maize.

And did they lower the price they are paying to their producers?

A number of years ago, when the Opposition also made such a fuss about maize prices, the Argentine farmers received almost 70 cents per bag less than the farmers in South Africa did. I also want to point out that Rhodesia has maize to export this year; Malawi and Kenya have maize to export, and Zambia has already sold 600,000 bags, and we find that Roumania, which is very close to the market, has a large surplus this year which it can export. The last time France imported maize from South Africa, was in 1956 when we sold two shiploads to them, but at present France is a major exporter of maize. France has roughly 10 million bags which it wants to export. We should therefore expect the supply on the world market to be tremendously high this season, and when the supply on the world market is so high, it can only have one effect and that is that prices will drop, and that will mean that next year we shall have a Stabilization Fund that will almost be exhausted. [Time expired.]

Did you make your recommendations to the Minister in ignorance?

You do not know anything about maize.

What surprises me about the hon. member for Ladybrand is that as far as I can see he is now speaking against the recommendations which he himself made to the Minister. But what surprises me more is that hon. members opposite say that no notice must be taken of what hon. members on this side say because we are only seeking popularity. But the fortunate thing about what members on this side of the House say is that we are speaking the truth and stating facts. We do not paint beautiful pictures about the future, as the hon. member for Marico did just now. He says: “Why worry? The dams are full: the grass is waving and everything in the land is lovely”, but he does not tell this Committee that one of the dams in his area is full of silt. Sir, this country has gone through one of the worst droughts it has ever experienced. It is not the first and it is not the last, and we must remember that South Africa is endemic to drought, and now that the drought has broken we should be preparing for future droughts. I think that the districts which have suffered most are our Bushveld areas all along our northern borders. I am speaking about that part of the country which extends from Kuruman through Mafeking, Marico, the Waterberg, the Koedoesrand, Soutpansberg and the Pietersburg district. These districts are normally not in a very high rainfall area and on account of the excessive heat they dry up more quickly than the rest of the Republic. They have very little permanent water. I should say that the rivers in that area serve as drainage; they drain very rapidly. After the recent floods that we had in the Rustenburg district, we found that within hours after the Deputy Minister had gone there the floods were over; the water was in the Limpopo. That river too flows rapidly and takes our very valuable floodwaters to the sea. Sir, those areas are our main beef areas and I think we should look upon the herds there as belonging to the State and not only to the individual ranchers who farm there. During the drought large numbers of these animals, especially breeding stock, had to be removed to new grazing grounds. Unfortunately when they arrived there there was very little drinking water, and I think it is only right that we should thank the petrol company concerned for supplying them with water. I believe this petrol company carted water to that area for months on end to keep those animals alive.

Another thing is that we should try to keep our breeding stock in these areas. We cannot afford to remove them and then reintroduce them. Any young animals born outside the area and then taken back are subject to virulent tick diseases, like redwater and heartwater and great losses take place. The Minister says that we should preserve our veld and not overgraze it now when it has rained after the drought, but what are we doing to preserve these fodder-banks? I say that we should conserve the floodwaters of those rivers. I am very glad to see that in the Estimates weirs are being built in one of these rivers, the Palala, to preserve the floodwaters.

That falls under Agricultural Technical Services and not under this Vote.

I notice that about 30 million bags of maize is being exported. Is it not possible to subsidize the beef farmers with that valuable food so that they can retain their beef herds during the dry periods and feed them for the local market? [Interjection.] I would also recommend that our young beef animals be refused for slaughter up to a given age, to allow them to mature more so that we can get a better crop of young beef. I have a cutting here from the Beef Farmers’ Association in Natal, which I would like to read—

It is our duty to take bolder steps to increase our valuable meet supplies to meet the ever-increasing demand for this very important commodity.

Lastly, I want to mention cheese. I believe there was a cheese on the Goodwood Show called Drakensberg. It is alleged that it is made at Glen, but two years ago this same cheese was on the Royal Show at Pietermaritzburg and I then understood that it was made at Cedara. When people inquired to buy this cheese, they were told to make inquiries to Pretoria. The question is: Why place a cheese on show for sale when they have not got the stocks to sell to the public?

I think that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) who has just resumed his seat said a great deal about drought and lost the scent completely. I think that the hon. member has knowledge of that, because he is entering a drought as far as his political career is concerned, and he will find matters very difficult in Pietermaritzburg next time. Then I want to reply to the hon. member for Newton Park, who said that at present no fathers’ sons became farmers any more; that these sons were leaving the rural areas for the cities. I want to ask him in what period of the history of this country the depopulation of the rural areas was more extensive than at the time the United Party was in power. At that time the United Party did not want to pay the farmer anything for his produce. It drove the farmer from the rural areas so that they had to work on the roads with pick and shovel. That is the United Party which says to-day that the Government is doing nothing for the farmer. Their memories are short, and that is why I refer to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City), because we know that he is serving out his notice. While they were in power, I, too, had to leave the farm and seek my future in the mines. But the young farmer takes pride in being on the farm, because he knows that his means of livelihood is safe in the hands of this Government. Now they are kicking up a fuss about the maize price which has supposedly been reduced by 28½ cents. [Interjections.] No, I shall not allow myself to be put off by those persons, because I know them too well. The 28½ cents was introduced in certain circumstances, to assist the farmer in the years of drought with which this country was stricken, but this Government paid the farmer 28½ cents more. I represent a constituency which consists mainly of workers, but also of farmers, all of them citizens of the Republic who are happy on their farms and who are prepared to struggle every day to gain a livelihood from their farms, be it by means of dairy farming or growing maize or corn or tomatoes. They are happy, and we know that the Ministers of to-day, as well as the Ministers of tomorrow, will do everything in their power to keep those young farmers, who are supposedly fleeing from the farms, where they are. Sir, there are problems in this country. There are problems as far as marketing is concerned. We have long distances over which certain products have to be conveyed to the markets, but active steps are being taken to assist the various producers in that respect. In the splendid explanation the Minister gave us this afternoon, we heard what the anticipated production is for this year. Last year and the year before that it was R37. This year the anticipated income per morgen is approximately R47. Then I am asking those people who are making such a fuss about the price of maize, whether it is fair to pay again this year the price that was paid last year, now that things are going well with us because it has rained. This Opposition says that the Government is doing nothing in regard to combating inflation. From whom do they want to extract that extra R20 million? From the taxpayer? From the consumer? From whose pockets do they want to extract that? Into whose pockets do they want to put it back? Sneak up, now! [Interjections.] They think that this maize price has something to do with Johannesburg (West). But those people are producing articles in factories; they are working in gold mines. They have confidence in the farmers of the rural areas, they are confident that the farmers of the rural areas will keep their pantries well-stocked. They are confident that they will earn the money which will enable them to buy the farmers’ produce. [Interjections.] I do not know what that hon. member has to offer, but whatever he can offer, I shall not want to buy at all. I say that we are confident that, if every member of this House of Assembly were to go to his constituency, particularly those constituencies where large quantities of maize are being produced, and to put this case to the maize producers in the way the hon. the Minister put it here to-day, those producers would then be satisfied. They will be satisfied because they have confidence in the Government and because they know that the Minister is taking these steps for the sake of the future and the interests of the maize industry.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened attentively to hon. members opposite since this morning. I can only say to you that it fills me with amazement that, despite the hon. the Minister’s explanation here, despite the way in which the hon. member for Christiana acted, and despite the information given by the hon. member for Ladybrand and others, the hon. members simply could not succeed in grasping what seems very elementary to and which is very easily understood by us on this side. For that reason I want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that I shall not even try to discuss these matters with him this afternoon in order to present the facts to him. No, Mr. Chairman, to me it is quite clear that hon. members on the other side are doing no more and no less than merely trying to make political capital out of agricultural problems and all these matters appertaining to agriculture.

I want to start off by just stating a fact to hon. members. I want to tell hon. members on the other side that hon. members on this side of the House, the National Party Government and also the voters who support the National Party have far more political appreciation than hon. members on the other side of the House and their party associates.

Where does one find that in the Estimates?

No, I am only telling you what the position is. This Government and the hon. the Minister and the electorate know that the easiest way to be popular is to do and to say popular things. But thank heaven they also know that popularity is sometimes a sign of weakness. The Government therefore accepts that it must not do only those things which will be popular—it must do what is right. What would have been easier than to be popular with the electorate of South Africa, what would have been easier than simply wanting to rectify everything by means of higher prices? If it were possible, and if it were in the interests of South Africa —and I say this to hon. members on the other side and to the electorate of South Africa— then this Government with its fine political appreciation would certainly have done it.

Consequently I now want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank our hon. Minister and the Government sincerely for the fact that they have for the umpteenth time over the past 18 or 19 years had the courage to do not what is popular, but what is right. I want to inform hon. members on the other side of the House that we have no illusions about the fact that many of our producer friends will be dissatisfied as a result of the announcement of the mealie price. If that were not the case, there would definitely have been something wrong with those people.

I want to tell the hon. member for King William’s Town that we have intelligent people in the National Party and in South Africa. I do not want to draw comparisons, but I want to say they are more intelligent than so many hon. members on the other side, so that when we put the facts to them outside they will again vote unanimously in favour of the National Party.

The position is simply this. If we present the facts to those people, if once again we not only present these things to them, but also prove to them that this Government is doing what is right, not only for them, but also for the entire community, irrespective of whatever occupation they may be practising, yes, is doing, what is best for South Africa, those people will continue to support this Government.

I conclude by saying to hon. members on the other side, by saying to the electorate of South Africa, that this National Government was, still is, and will also in future be the friend and protector of the farmer, and not only of the farmer, but also of every occupation, whatever it may be, throughout the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that after the last speech which we have heard—or, shall I say, political diatribe—-from the hon. member for Smithfield I am not sure which Vote we are really discussing. At one stage I thought that perhaps I was sitting in a hall somewhere listening to an electioneering speech. I do not think that the hon. member once mentioned agricultural matters. I think that what I have now said disposes of what that hon. member said.

I want to say something to the hon. member for Stilfontein who did say something about agriculture. I cannot say that I agree with him altogether. But of course, here again we have the same old story of politics. This was not an agricultural discussion; this was pure politics. [Interjections.] The hon. member had the audacity to say that the United Party government “het die boere gedryf” to work with a pick and shovel. At that stage it was a coalition government which put out work to assist those farmers who were in dire straits because of drought conditions. [Interjections.] We had a Nationalist government and after that we had a coalition government. Yet the hen. member blames the United Party. The hon. member not only does not know his agriculture—he also does not know his history!

I want to go back to the hon. the Minister and the reply which he gave concerning the dairy industry in this country. The hon. member for Walmer will talk further about that matter later. There is one particular matter which I want to take up, though, and that was that the Minister alleged that the greatest increase in the consumption of dairy produce took place when consumer prices were reduced. During the years 1965 and 1966 we had three increases in the price of butter. Let us just deal with butter for the moment. Those three increases in prices meant to the consumer an increase of 7c per lb., starting at 34c. If my arithmetic is correct, that is an increase of approximately 17 per cent. But what happened to consumption during that period? We find that consumption increased from 102.8 million lb. to 112.9 million lb.—an increase of 10.1million lb. This brings me to the point I made earlier, that it is not a question of reducing prices but rather of stimulating consumption in the local market. This then is what we want to say to the Government: Get on and stimulate consumption on the one hand and production on the other hand. I now come to production. The Minister took production figures of a week in January this year and compared them with production figures of the same week in January last year—incidentally, he only took one week—-and found that there had been an increase in production of 70 per cent. This is exactly what we pleaded last year the Minister should not do. Now he is in a panic that we are going to have overproduction perhaps. It is this type of thing which leads to remarks such as these from the president of the Natal Agricultural Union at their congress in October last year—-

These then are the words of the president of the Natal Agricultural Union. Now is the time for the Government to formulate some long-term policies with a view to encouraging the dairy farmer to develop and stabilize his enterprise. We are not, Sir, pleading for an increase in prices but for stabilization and, preferably, a reduction in production costs.

I too want to get in on this mealie story. I think no hon. member in this House will disagree with me when I say that where maize is fed to animals an increased production results. If we look at the accounts of the Maize Board for last year we find that over the last 13 years maize has been exported at a net loss of R44.8 million—in other words, it has cost the country R44.8 million to export maize over the last 13 years. It was estimated in the March issue of Mielienuus that during the coming season we are going to export 30 million bags at an anticipated loss of R14.6 million.

This assessment is based on last year’s producers’ prices. However, these prices have now been reduced and thereby this anticipated loss is reduced to about R8.6 million. This quantity of maize is exported to other countries where other people are going to benefit from it. Why not use these mealies in our own country and make it available at a reduced price to the stock producers of the country? Let us use it here—why should other people have the benefit of it?

In the few minutes remaining to me I should like to put certain pertinent questions to the Minister about bananas—that is, if hon. members who are so vociferous here on my left will give me an opportunity of doing so. There appears to be an awful lot of misunderstanding in the country at the moment with regard to the control of bananas. The producer finds that in many instances he is getting less than 30 per cent of the price the consumer pays for bananas. The producer feels this is unfair. At the other end of the scale we have again the consumer who at certain times is paying up to 20c per pound. There is no control—we know it. There is a suggested price. We know that but the people outside do not. They think the price of bananas is controlled. So, I should like to appeal to the Minister to make a statement about this matter in order to clarify the position. As I say, there is a suggested price only but this is not a definite and fixed controlled price. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give us a statement about the matter.

I now want to return to the question of production costs particularly in so far as the dairy industry is concerned and want to support what the hon. member for Gardens has said. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down criticized hon. members on this side of the House for allegedly having made a political issue of the mealie price. But what have hon. members of the Opposition been doing all day long? They have been making a political issue of a matter about which the Government is in earnest, namely the mealie price. The Opposition has dragged the mealie price into the debate. The Government had the courage of its convictions in reducing the price in the light of prevailing conditions. That can of course never be a popular step. Something like that can only be done by a Government which knows what it is doing and which takes all the circumstances into account. But in spite of the clouds of dust which have been raised here to-day, the mealie farmers will accept the new price, because, in spite of the lower price, they will have a larger income this season than in the past. But I leave the mealie price at that and turn to another matter.

I come from a constituency which was very hard hit by the recent drought and where the farmers consequently had to make much use of aid schemes provided by the Government— things like stock feed loans, stock feed subsidies, and so forth. Now it is a heartfelt need of mine, and of my constituents as well— United Party as well as National Party supporters—to convey our sincere thanks to the Government for the generous provision which was made to meet the needs of our farmers during the emergency. The scheme functioned smoothly in spite of the fact that it was something new and had therefore not been in operation there before. Nevertheless the local committees concerned succeeded in getting things going immediately and in meeting the needs there without delay. Admittedly the loans and subsidies were not intended to maintain production, nor did that happen. But I can give this hon. House the assurance that in my constitituency alone hundreds of thousands of head of livestock were saved as a result of the generous measure in which the Government supplied the needs of the people there. We should realize that the drought that has just ended is a condition that frequently repeats itself in this country and we should be prepared in advance for such an eventuality. I want to make the suggestion to the Department that we should ask the district committees who undertook the implementation of these schemes to record their experiences and to make recommendations in regard to the malpractices which occurred. As happens in the case of such well-meant schemes there are those, although they constitute a small minority, who tried to take advantage of the schemes. With a view to the future it may perhaps be a good thing to take note of the ways in which these people exploit these schemes and commit malpractices. The committees can provide very valuable information for the future as regards the way in which the schemes should be introduced and administered. I would recommend very strongly to the Department that they ask the committees to submit full reports. By means of these reports a pattern can be established for the future. We hear quite often that we are doling out money to the farmers, and that we are giving them money to which they are not entitled. I want to root out that attitude and that tendency on our part. We must realize that our farming community suffers under and is subject to factors which do not apply to the other industries. The other industries have a guaranteed market for their products. In the case of the farming industry that is not always the position. The farming industry labours under climatic conditions and climatic factors which can deal it a severe blow at any time. Consequently it is only fair that, when our farming community is in distress, we should regard assistance which is rendered in this way not as alms, but as something to which they are entitled as of right.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. members on the opposite side that I shall not follow up their speeches on the prices of maize. They have had so many lectures from this side of the House, and yet they never learn. It reminds me of the words of a philosopher that I read about. He said: The more I learn, the more I know, and the more I know the more I, forget, and because I forget I do not learn. The hon. members on the opposite side do not learn. They never learn. They never will learn, because they are given one lecture after another, yet they never learn. For that reason I shall not follow them and give them another lecture.

I want to devote some attention to this new Land Tenure Act. This new Act has meant a great deal to us and still means a great deal to us. I want to tell you that my voters and I myself are sincerely grateful for this new Land Tenure Act. We are grateful because it has removed the stigma from that section of our community. They are no longer settlers and they are no longer living on plots; they are now farmers living on a farm. The farmer is now the owner of his farm, as allocated to him in terms of this Act. We are grateful that this Act has removed that stigma. We are grateful that the Act has done away with some restrictive measures. We are also grateful that the Act allows local people to be appointed to local committees in order to do the work locally. We are grateful that a farmer can now be the owner of his own land and that he need no longer be served by people who live outside his area and who do not know him and his circumstances. However, there are some matters which in my view are somewhat pressing and which should be rectified. I should like to ask the Minister to devote his attention to these few matters and to see whether he can rectify them for us. This Act provides that one farmer, particularly in that region, may purchase a second plot with the consent of the Department. Through the years it has been the policy of the Minister that he could have only one. Now the Act has been changed. We can now buy a second plot, if the policy is changed. This Act was a consolidating measure, and also replaced the old Water Act. Against this background we expected a great deal of improvement under the new Act. Without criticizing I want to say that we have not yet seen much improvement. I want to express the hope that the leeway we are still experiencing, as a result of which we cannot get assistance, will merely be teething problems, that these will shortly be ironed out and that in terms of this Act we shall get a new dispensation, as we were promised. I am merely stating a fact; I am not complaining. I hope that it will shortly be rectified. For the present the distressing circumstances in my constituency, which contains the greatest settlement in the country, have been much more pressing since this new Act was introduced. Before the Act came into operation it was the duty of the State to allocate extensions to people who did not have economic units. Now the new Act provides that they can buy the extensions. At present there are several hundreds of applications—I would almost say monthly—to buy extensions. But we receive no assistance from the Departments. I said in passing that I hoped that these were merely teething troubles and that matters would improve in the course of time. I want to plead with the Minister that he should incorporate in his policy the fact that two plots may be sold to a person, as is now allowed in terms of the Act, and that he should instruct his Land Tenure Board that this may in fact be done.

If we see this matter in its proper perspective and examine the background of this settlement, we find that when that settlement was established 30 or 35 years ago it was established to rehabilitate the White farmer. The then Minister said that the norm for a liveable income for such a farmer was R500. In those days it was called £250. Because that was the norm, those plots were demarcated to provide for that norm of R500. They were subdivided to an average size of 25 morgen. They had to cultivate those 25 morgen with four mules, which were allocated to them, a plough, a harvester, a planter and a wagon, at a cost of R500. Consequently, their capital investment was as follows: There was R500 for the implements and an average of R2,000 for a plot. For ten years there was only nominal interest on that capital investment. There was also legislation that no taxes could be imposed on them for the first ten years. That included land tax, etc. I am not speaking of income tax. It was therefore easy for those people to make a profit of R500 a year. Now, 30 years later, the capital value of those units has increased to R50,000, as against R2,000. The average sale price is R30,000, with R10,000 for the house. This is the information of the Department, not mine. There is a capital investment in implements of between R7,000 and R10,000, as against the initial R500. That means that just the interest on that capital investment must be R4,000 before the farmer can actually make a living. In 1965 the norm laid down by the Department was that the liveable income of such a person was R1,500. Seen against the background of these facts, a farmer has to earn R5,500 on that very plot, which has become no larger. Those plots are therefore over-capitalized.

It is my request that that policy should be changed in order that a person may buy a second plot to provide him with that R4,500 profit, or even more, because the extra costs involved in the extra plot will be added. Now that that farmer has become motorized, if I may put it that way, because he no longer farms with mules but with tractors, he spends half his time at home being unproductive. In view of the shortage of manpower we are experiencing at present every second farmer may therefore get to work and render useful service to the State, instead of sitting on his stoep and looking at a plot on which he has nothing to do for half the time. Because he is productive only half the time, he can therefore spend the other half of his time on a second plot, in the first place, and secondly, he can also use the implements he uses to cultivate one plot for cultivating a second. In most cases he can cultivate that second plot with the same complement of labourers that he has at present, and in view of the fact that the Act provides that this may be done but that only the policy of the Minister is still preventing it, I ask that the hon. the Minister should change that policy in order that the farmer may in fact buy that second plot. But there is a second condition attached, and that is that it has to be approved by the Minister of Water Affairs. I, leave the matter there for the moment; I shall raise it under the Water Affairs Vote if I am given an opportunity to do so. I ask that the hon. the Minister should now allow his Department to recommend to the Minister of Water Affairs that the farmers be allowed to buy those second plots. At present we are to a certain extent exploiting those plots wastefully. We have to irrigate and cultivate them so high up to make any profit from them. At the moment those plots are being cultivated to the point of 150 per cent doubling. Cultivation is doubled by 150 per cent. In other words, we cultivate every alternate morgen twice a year to take the maximum from the soil in order to be able to show a profit. We can no longer continue in that way. In view of the fact that farmers on other schemes are allowed to buy second plots, I want to plead that we should also be allowed to do so on this scheme. By these means we can prevent over-capitalization; we can increase the production by extending the land, and where the Act now provides that a farmer may buy a second plot, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to allow us to do so and to provide State assistance to those people who need it. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Kimberley (North), who has now resumed his seat, has made a commendable plea for his constituency, but in typical fashion, like all other members on the Government side, he said that he was merely presenting the facts, that he was not complaining. We are used to that from hon. members on the opposite side. If only they would complain now and then, they would help us to get something out of the Government.

The hon. members for Kimberley (North), Parow and Smithfield all three entered the debate and spoke about the prices of maize, and all they could say was that this side of the House had made much ado about the decrease in the price of maize, but not one of them tried to justify that decrease. The hon. member for Smithfield, who has now left the Chamber, went further and said that this side of the House merely pleaded for higher prices for agricultural produce all the time. I want to refute that statement. This side of the House has not made one plea to-day that the price of any agricultural product should be increased. What hon. members on this side of the House have said repeatedly is that we did not want to plead for higher prices for agricultural products on the domestic market, prices which are quite disproportionate to overseas prices, because if one does so one eventually has to subsidize export products to such an extent that it becomes completely uneconomic. What this side of the House pleaded for repeatedly was that production costs should be decreased by the Government wherever it was possible for it to do so.

I should like to come back to a statement made by the hon. the Minister in connection with the Langeberg Co-operative and the pineapple industry in the Eastern Cape. The hon. the Minister set out the reasons why Langeberg experienced financial difficulties. We accept the explanation of the hon. the Minister, although he did not add that it was also due to a lack of good management, but I leave it at that. I do want to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s notice that this qualification that 5 per cent of the yield of the fruit should be held back for a period of five consecutive years has a detrimental effect on Langeberg’s intake; it must have a detrimental effect; it cannot be otherwise, and if there is any method of getting rid of this, it will be to the advantage of Langeberg.

There is another matter that I have to mention. From time to time new factories are established to handle the products of the pineapple industry; last year another new factory was established, and the argument advanced by the hon. the Minister, that the nearby producers should supply the local factories and that the producers who are situated far from the local factories should supply Langeberg, holds no water. The prices vary from one factory to the next. Some factories pay on a quality basis; other factories pay on the basis of weight; and others on a quantity basis.

One gives an advance and the other a fixed price.

They all pay on a monthly basis for local intake. The advance does not play such an important role if one gets one’s cheque at the end of the month in any event. It is when it comes to exports that the problem arises.

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to come back to the sheep and wool industry. In the first place I just want to say that I am grateful that the Minister agrees with me that the industry as such needs special attention at this stage. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that the marketing costs will shortly increase again. Even now the levy is 1.5c, and presumably it will show a further increase shortly. In view of all these factors I have mentioned I want to make a special plea to the hon. the Minister, with regard to the reclamation of grazing, that his Department, together with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, should devise schemes that may be applied to the sheep industry and the cattle industry just as much as to the other industries. That is essential. The hon. the Minister knows the part of the country where I grew up, namely Somerset East, Middelburg and that region, and he knows just as well as I do that after the tremendous caterpillar infestation we had there the growth we find there at the moment is mainly “rolbos” and flush and devil’s thorns. If something is not done to rehabilitate that land, even these good rains we have now had will bring little relief, because as soon as there is a new drought that annual growth we now have there will disappear— because it is only growths; it is not grass, except in marshy spots—and then we will have the same problems all over again. The only time to rehabilitate the land is immediately after we have had good rains. It cannot be done if there is a drought. After three years of drought one cannot simply rehabilitate that grazing; one cannot do anything about it, no matter how much one should like to do so. We have now had fairly good rain in most of the sheep regions, and the appropriate time to rehabilitate the industry is now, and not after a drought period. The Minister consented to institute an inquiry to see what may be done by way of publicity, apart from research, to promote the wool industry, but we shall appreciate it if he could go even further and see what can be done for the industry by way of rehabilitating our grazing.

You are speaking to the wrong Minister: that comes under Technical Services.

I cannot hear what the hon. member for Christiana is saying. If he wants to ask me a question he must get up; he must not sit there and shout. I want to bring it to the Minister’s notice that the production costs are a factor over which the producer has no control. I have already referred to the increasing marketing costs and the higher levy. The price of wool, however, remains constant. In fact, there are indications that it is tending to decrease. My plea to the hon. the Minister is therefore that he should ask his colleague to provide further encouragement to the wool industry, for if that is not done the industry will deteriorate even further.

We are grateful for the relief brought about by the rains, but the constituency I represent is to a certain extent still suffering from drought. But we know that financially the farmers in the North-West can recover very quickly. We have one weak spot in the Northern Cape, and that is that if we get adequate rains we make such a quick financial recovery that we sometimes forget the hardship too quickly. Some of the arguments advanced by the opposite side of the House are certainly valid, but many arguments have also been advanced which are quite unfounded. I want to mention just one argument by the hon. member for East London (City), namely that our wool production is so much smaller this year. But we have been experiencing one of the worst droughts in 60 years, and we should therefore not be surprised that our wool production has decreased. The hon. member is a wool farmer and he should know that during times of drought the wool production is much lower than in good years, Another argument was that our farmers had supposedly suffered such heavy losses and that the numbers of our stock had decreased, but that is not true.

I admit that at present we have fairly large debts and debits, but since 1960 our sheep numbers have increased by 3 million. Then the hon. member asked that certain prices should be increased. I am grateful for the assistance the Government has rendered to the farmers, and I believe the Opposition is just as grateful, because if the farmers had not received this assistance I do not know where we would have been. I think we should be grateful for this assistance of R17 million and I am therefore convinced that the farmers will not go under, because they have received the necessary assistance. I am grateful to know that while our population is growing and the responsibility resting on agriculture is growing every year, we shall be able to meet these requirements. Because we know that by the year 1990 the population will number approximately 35 million, I am convinced that through the development in all spheres of agriculture we shall be well able to feed the population, which other countries are not able to do.

I just want to mention one matter. I want to convey my appreciation to the co-operative organizations which have rendered such tremendous service in recent times. Now that we are once again in a position to help ourselves and will not be so dependent upon the cooperatives in future, I want to express my appreciation of the selfless service they rendered to the farmers in recent years, during the drought. All that bothers me is that some of our farmers who criticize a great deal without having the necessary knowledge of a matter are not helping the co-operatives. I would submit that these people are doing the co-operatives a disservice. If one considers that the marketing undertaken by the co-operatives is at present 33 per cent as far as cattle is concerned, and 48 per cent as far as sheep is concerned, and 34 per cent as far as pigs are concerned, and 46.2 per cent as far as calves are concerned, then I think that a good farmer who has his own organization which has served him well, as the co-operatives have served us in reent years, should not neglect the co-operatives to such an extent as far as marketing is concerned. They did not contribute 40 per cent to general marketing. I think in this respect we really have an obligation and we owe it to the co-operatives to do all our marketing through them, not to help them but to support and to strengthen our own organization for the years ahead. It has been said that there is a stock shortage in the country, but I do not think that is true. To a certain extent the marketing of our cattle has decreased. Last year it decreased by 1.4 per cent and the previous year by 4.4 per cent, but we should remember, of course, that the severe drought had an effect on that, and if we bear in mind that Botswana marketed fewer cattle, we may be satisfied that in general the marketing of our cattle was adequate.

On the other hand, we are satisfied that the marketing of sheep and lambs increased by approximately 18.6 per cent. It is probably a fact that in the higher weight group of our marketing prices it was the position that 3½ cents on the floor price was an attractive price and that the sheep farmer was encouraged by that. There is also the guarantee price, which promoted stability. But in the lower weight group the difference between the guaranteed price and the floor price was approximately 5½ cents. Before concluding, I should like to make some observations in this regard. In the first place I think that a large number of our farmers who marketed in this period enjoyed the benefit of this, and in years to come there will be a stable, guaranteed price, which will encourage us to increase production. But despite this I want to make the observation in view of the fact that we have a fairly good amount in levy funds this year, I trust that it will be considered using this levy fund in the interests of the farmers, even if only the interest accruing on it, to help this section of our farmers who did not benefit from the 5½ cents, because they are experiencing harder times than the other farmers who did enjoy that advantage.

Progress reported.

Unless notice of objection to the adoption of the Report is given at the commencement of the next sitting day, the Report will be considered as adopted.

May I have the privilege of the second half-hour? I want to move away from the mealie-fields of South Africa this afternoon and come down to the question of the Pongolapoort Dam, or the Josini Dam, as it is usually called, and to deal with the development contemplated there and the position in which we find ourselves to-day. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the time has come when he should take the House into his confidence and tell us precisely what is taking place at that dam. Questions have been put from time to time in regard to the development there, and only recently, in reply to questions, I was told that the final cost of that work would be R39 million.

Does that not fall under Water Affairs?

No, Sir, not the settlement part of it. I am referring to page 165, Item H, the settlement at Pongola. The position is that recently in reply to questions I was informed that it was the intention of the Department to grow sugar cane, in the main, on the land below this dam. I do not want to misquote. My question was what crop was it proposed to grow under this irrigation scheme, and the answer was that it was largely sugar cane. Then I asked whether the land had been surveyed into lots yet and, if so, how many. The answer was that to date no land had been surveyed under the scheme into lots by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. May I remark that it is very unlikely that any other Department would survey it into lots. Then I asked whether land would be made available to both white and non-white irrigators and, if so, how many lots would be made available to members of each race group. The reply was that the matter was still under consideration. But after that, on Friday last, 28th April, a statement was made in a court case, in the Supreme Court of Natal, by a gentleman who was Senior Counsel for the Government in a very large case, I believe the biggest civil case in the history of South Africa. He was addressing the Judge-President. Sir, when Senior Counsel for the Government addresses the Judge-President, one must assume that he has some ground for any statement he may make. My hon. Leader tells me that he would have been properly instructed. So, notwithstanding the fact that only six weeks previously I had asked very similar questions, this statement was made in court. I asked the Minister whether he would make a statement in regard to the matter and he said that tests were still being made to determine which crops could be grown to the best advantage on the irrigable land. Six weeks before he said it would be sugar cane, but now they were making tests. He went on to say that the extent to which the land would be made available to Whites and Bantu would be decided later. The point is that precisely what Senior Counsel said in court is now the answer I get. May I say that this matter is not sub judice. Learned counsel said pretty well what the Minister did to me in his reply on Friday. The report says—

Sir, I think we are entitled to ask the Minister to take us into his confidence. There have been doubts about the settlement since some three years ago when there were established experimental plots for the growing of tropical crops of all kinds, experimental plots amounting to 401 morgen, in other words, the best part of 800 acres. It is therefore no small experiment. Other difficulties arose in connection with the sub-soil, with the question of brack, the question of what land was to go to the Bantu and what was to be utilized as a shop-window for Bantu development and what was to come to white irrigators, if indeed any. The cost of this was R39 million. Now comes this statement by learned counsel. The hon. the Minister does not answer me directly and say that he has heard of this statement and that it is right or partly right or wrong;he merely says, in the words of learned counsel himself, that the whole matter is still being investigated. Sir, Parliament has to be jealous of the money it votes for schemes of this kind. Here we had an expenditure of R39 million at a time when that money could have been used to safeguard other communities. I do not know what the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs could have done if he had had that R39 million to spare some three or four years ago to safeguard other communities hit by the drought, whereas to-day, who benefits?

Sir, I am not going to deal with the law cases; far be it for me to deal with that aspect of the matter because some of them at any rate are sub judice. But one of them has been settled; judgment has been given and the Government is now going to be called upon to pay high compensation in terms of the judgment given in that particular case, in respect of the scheme in which not a single lot has yet been surveyed. Nobody knows who is going to have any lots there to cultivate; nobody knows whether it is going to be suitable for cultivation, and nobody knows what can be cultivated there. They are still carrying out experiments. Sir, the whole thing is completely unsatisfactory from whatever way you look at it. In view of the magnitude of the scheme, not a penny should have been spent on it until such time as from the irrigation point of view the most fundamental and careful tests had been carried out to see that the soil was suitable. Because what is the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs going to do with it if it happens to be handed over to him? Here, Sir, there is an inter-linking between the two Ministers and the two Departments. The irrigation settlement comes under the Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, but when once the movement of the water starts then it goes to the Minister of Water Affairs and then we have two Departments involved. You would have thought, Sir, that proper soil surveys would have been made; that everything possible would have been done to see that whatever was spent there was spent to the best possible advantage. Sir. I remember the White Paper that was issued at the time. I still have a copy of it. I remember the White Paper in which this wonderful, glorious vision was held up: Seven sugar mills, villages, schools, and everything else. Enormous development was to take place here. We warned against it at the time and I have never ceased to warn against it. I asked where those figures came from and we were told that they came from the S.A. Sugar Association. But when I made inquiries I found that they were already three or four years out of date. Three or four years had elapsed since those figures were given and the market was already changing. The figures were hopelessly out of date and the red light was already showing; there were already signs as to what was likely to happen if the sugar market followed the course which indeed it has followed. But that, Sir, took no cognizance of the capabilities of the soil, of the use of the soil, of its adequacy for the purpose for which the scheme was being designed. Large areas of this scheme are quite unsuitable. I hope the Minister will take us into his confidence. Let him tell us categorically whether he does not believe that the water can be better used to irrigate on the western side of the mountain. The whole of this development was on the east. It is wrong; it cannot be justified. I have seen letters which have appeared in newspapers from people up there at the present time. A letter appeared recently in Landbouweekblad, written by a man who obviously has some inside knowledge about what is happening, and who calls this the Pongola White elephant because of the wastage of money and the inadequacy of the scheme for the purpose for which it was designed.

Sir, if the water can be used advantageously on the western side of the mountain, I hope the Minister will tell us so frankly and that he will tell us that as far as the east is concerned, the Makatini Flats and all those areas, the matter is going to be closed and that they are not going on with this scheme. Let him cut his losses and tell the public and this Committee precisely what the position is. If this thing goes dragging on, now that the light of day has been cast on it, not by me but by senior counsel engaged by the Government, senior counsel who was addressing the Judge-President in a court of law and who made this statement which I just quoted …

He cannot make that statement without having evidence to prove it.

Sir, my hon. Leader points out that learned counsel in this case would have had evidence to prove what he was saying. He must have had the facts put to him by the authority for which he was acting, which is the Government. Nobody else could have given him those facts; the Government must have given him the facts. You are not going to get a man occupying that position in the legal fraternity standing up and making statements of that kind before a full Bench unless he has grounds for those statements. Sir, not only do we want to know if the water is going to be used but where it is going to be used. The suggestion has already been made that they should not go on with the top 50 feet of the dam but that the dam should be kept at the present lower level so as to save the cost that would be involved in raising it to that height, until such time as they determine precisely where the water can be used and for what purpose it is going to be used. Sir, I make this appeal to the hon. the Minister to let us have the full facts in regard to the whole situation there. If the thing is bad—and I believe it is—then he should cut his losses and be frank with us and tell us that he is going to try to use that water for irrigation purposes on the other side of the mountain, on the west.

I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will be able to reply fully to the matter raised by the hon. member for South Coast. I want to avail myself of the opportunity this afternoon to say a few words on the wheat position in the country. Personally, I feel particularly concerned if we bear in mind that the consumption in 1963-’64 was 11.201 million bags while the consumption in 1963-’66 was 12.479 million bags. One wonders what the consumption will be in ten years’ time. In view of the tremendous increase in the population I would not be surprised if our consumption perhaps increased to 20 million bags. We had to import 5,420,000 bags during the past year, that is, in 1965-’66, and we shall import 7.5 million bags in the coming year, that is, in 1966-’67. I am aware of the fact that we can import wheat more cheaply than our own farmers can produce it, but if we accept that wheat, delivered at the miller, will cost R6 per bag, for example, it means that we should have had to spend R45 million in foreign exchange in order to buy this additional wheat. I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing that wheat is one of the most uncertain crops one can cultivate in South Africa. I want to prove that. In 1961-’62 we produced 9.2 million bags; in 1962-’63 7.1 million, which represents a decrease of more than 2 million bags. In 1963-’64 we produced 9.1 million bags and in 1964-’65 we produced 11.037 million bags. The following year, 1965-’66, we produced 7.38 million bags and in 1965’67 we produced 6 million bags. I do not think there is anybody in this House who has any doubt that as is stated in the Bible, “Man shall not live by bread alone”. Indeed, one cannot live by bread alone, but it is necessary that one should have bread to eat. One gets concerned and that is why I want to make a plea on behalf of the wheat farmer this afternoon. If one considers the position of the maize farmer—and I do not want to talk about the reduction of 20 cents now, because it is not relevant—and if one accepts that at the present price the average yield was 14 bags per morgen and the entrepreneur’s wage amounted to 92 cents per bag, then the maize farmer makes a profit of between R13 and R14 per morgen on his mealies. Let us see what the position is as far as the wheat farmer is concerned. The average yield in the case of the wheat farmer is 9 bags per morgen with an entrepreneur’s wage of 117 cents per bag, which means that this farmer makes a profit of only slightly more than R10 per morgen. South Africa provides the cheapest bread to its consumers in the whole world to-day, namely at a price of 9 cents for a loaf of white bread. The hon. the Minister of Sport looks at me. Our bread is cheap and no other country produces cheaper bread.

It is subsidized.

I know it is subsidized. Brown bread is sold at 1½ cents. I realize full well that bread is subsidized, and if we look at the Estimates we find that bread is being subsidized this year to the extent of R23.514 million. I am glad the Government does that in order to keep the cost of living down in that way, but seeing that the new wheat price is to be announced shortly, I think the Government and the Minister should give serious consideration to providing some really considerable incentive as regards the price of wheat. I can assure the Minister that particularly in the North Eastern Free State, where modern methods and means of production are applied, the wheat farmer, if given a little more encouragement, will produce more wheat, so that we shall be able to supply the needs of the consumer. The Minister may say that we can import wheat much more cheaply than the South African producer can produce it. That is true and I know it. But supposing our enemies tell us that they will not supply us with wheat until such time as we have changed our colour policy, where will we get wheat from then? For that reason I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister that, seeing that the wheat price will be announced shortly—and I happen to know that production costs have increased by 19 cents—consideration be given to this aspect. I have discussed this matter with wheat farmers in the Western Province and in the Swartland. They do not want to grow wheat any longer. They are giving up their wheat farming. They are going in for lupins, lucerne and sheep farming instead of wheat farming. I cannot see why the South African consumer should not pay only half a cent more for bread over and above the tremendous subsidy the consumer gets from the State. I am convinced that the farmers will go out of their way because they will then know that they are going to receive a profitable price. The hon. the Minister of Sport is looking at me again. How will his rugby players be able to run if they do not have brown bread to eat? The time will come when we will not have enough bread owing to the tremendous increase in the population. Our farmers have brought about such a revolution with our modern means and methods of production that we are really in a position to produce more wheat, but we are not going to produce more wheat if we can make so much money out of mealies. We are making enough money by growing mealies. Why would we then grow wheat? For that reason, seeing that the hon. the Minister is going to announce the price of wheat shortly, I should like him to introduce an incentive of at least 25 cents in order to encourage our farmers to produce more wheat, which is an essential food product, for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House welcome the plea made by the hon. member for Bethlehem for an increase in the price of wheat because, like other farmers, the wheat farmer of South Africa has suffered severely as a result of the agricultural policy of this Government, but this afternoon I want to talk about Land Tenure under Vote 29. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that he is the owner of 1,700 morgen of land which forms part of my constituency. Apparently he is not aware of it. He is probably not acquainted with all the facts in connection with that piece of State-owned land. 275 morgen of the State-owned land constitutes Westlake and Pollsmoor, a white area which was declared as such in 1961. At that stage there were two non-white institutions in that area, but since the area was declared a white area, a further five non-white institutions have been established on that State-owned land, and these institutions are still expanding. I asked the Minister of Community Development recently whether these non-white institutions were there on a temporary or on a permanent basis. His reply was that they were there on a temporary basis. He said the intention was that all Coloured institutions would eventually be moved to Coloured areas. That same day I put a question to this hon. Minister about the future of that same State-owned land. He said that the tenure of the State-owned land in Westlake and Pollsmoor was of a permanent and not a temporary nature, except for a piece of land four morgen in extent which had been let to the Westlake Golf Club. Mr. Chairman, what about the extensions undertaken on the State-owned land in this area? I put a further question to the Minister of Community Development—

The Minister replied as follows—

In addtion I asked him whether he was aware of the fact that the present extensions amounted to more than Ri million. The Minister of Community Development then replied—

I put a series of questions to the Minister of Prisons recently in connection with the future of the prisons in that area. What was his reply? He said that it was the intention of his Department to build more prisons for non-Whites, prisons which would accommodate 3,132 non-Whites, that provision was going to be made for accommodating 290 Whites and that there would be 227 members of staff. This had been approved by the Minister of Finance himself. He had provided R½ million for this purpose in the Estimates. According to the Department of Prisons it is not the intention at all to convert the non-white prisons, which are extremely large, into white prisons, as the Minister of Community Development said in his reply to my question. On the contrary, special provision is also being made in these Estimates for a brand new white prison to be erected next to the non-white prison. The Minister whose Vote we are discussing now, is the owner of all this State land. It is a very valuable piece of land, 270 morgen in extent. We already have a shortage of available land for housing purposes in that area. The taxpayers’ money is already being wasted owing to the fact that disqualified development is being allowed to take place. Because we have enough evidence of ministerial incompetency and particularly of ministerial ignorance and departmental overlapping. I am definitely entitled to ask that the Minister concerned should institute an investigation and should stop any further misuse of State-owned land and the taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that I do not want to talk about the mealie price or about Sampi. I rather want to talk about the new Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. All of us who are representatives of rural constituencies expected a great deal— and still expect a great deal—of this new Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Of course, we made rather much of the expectations of our constituents in that regard. I take it that the assistance to be rendered by this Department will be rendered to those farmers who cannot be assisted by means of credit obtained from the private sector. I also take it that farmers who can be assisted by the Land Bank will be excluded. All the other farmers will have to be assisted by this Department when they want to consolidate their debts or when they want to buy land or when they want to obtain means of production. Of course, quite a number of other kinds of credit fall under this Department. As is indicated by the figures for the last six months, the three main items for which this Department caters at present are the consolidation of debts, the purchase of land and advances on production. I notice from the figures at my disposal that as far as advances on production are concerned of the total number of 1.234 applications only 236 were not granted. That is a small percentage, namely approximately 10 per cent. In respect of consolidation of debts 325 applications were received, only 160 of which were granted, that is to say, 50 per cent. As you can see, this is only a small number in comparison. Then there is the purchase of land, in respect of which there were 213 applications, but of which only 114, that is to say, approximately 55 per cent, were granted. In respect of these two items, namely the consolidation of debts and the purchase of land, the number of applications refused was much greater compared with the number of applications refused in the case of advances on production.

I want to express a few thoughts as far as these two items are concerned. Firstly, I want to deal with the consolidation of debts. I have had many cases before the Agricultural Credit Board. I get the impression that the distress relief motive is beginning to disappear as far as advances are concerned. You will know the history of this matter. You will know that this department is taking the place of the Department of State Advances. As a matter of fact, State advances were introduced to serve as a distress relief measure for farmers. In other words, the distress relief motive was, in fact, of overriding importance as far as those advances were concerned. In the case of the Agricultural Credit Board, however, the requirements which are laid down are so stringent and so much security has to be provided that the distress relief motive vitually falls away. I know it is a statutory board. The Minister probably cannot intervene and dictate to them what policy to follow. But I do want to avail myself of this opportunity to point out to that body that the distress relief motive should definitely not be left out of account when it considers those applications. For a number of years—almost for a decade—our farming industry experienced major difficulties. We had conditions of drought and conditions which were completely beyond the control of the farmer. I have many farmers in my constituency who are in financial difficulties at present. On their behalf I want to plead that the distress relief motive should again be a strong factor when those applications are considered.

I want to leave the matter at that. I now come to the purchase of land. I had to deal with two cases in this connection and I want to mention them in order to illustrate a new principle which is now being applied by that board. Apparently that board adopts the attitude that it can force down land prices in South Africa. The price of land in South Africa is an economic reality. It is something real. No board and no person will ever be able to change that so as to force down land prices artificially. The price will always be regulated by supply and demand. The fact remains that our land prices are still increasing. I now want to quote these two cases to you, Sir, in order to illustrate why I say that. The first case is that of a farmer who can acquire an economic unit of 300 morgen. He can buy this unit for R24,000. His application is considered by the board, which says: We shall let you have R20.000, but then you must submit an affidavit made by the seller in which he states that he has sold that land for R20.000, that is to say, R4.000 below his price. Now I ask: Where on earth will one find a seller who will allow any board or any person to dictate to him to sell his property at a price laid down by such board because the latter wants to advance money to the buyer? To do so, is to act unrealistically. I want to say further that that particular buyer offered to deposit the additional amount of R4,000. He also provided the bank with a guarantee for the additional amount. But he was simply refused permission to do so. Now you will remember, Sir, that under the old Land Board system which we had, a certain maximum amount of money was advanced when land was purchased and that the buyer could always pay in the difference. In this particular case the buyer was not allowed to do so. The only deduction that can be made is that the board would like to force down land prices as such: the board does not want to allow land to be sold at current land pi ices. There is also another case, which involves R32,000: An offer of R28,000 was made—the board was not prepared to advance R32,000. In that case, too, the seller was required to make an affidavit to the effect that the land had been sold for R28,000.

Now, Sir, that simply will not do, and that is why I am raising this matter here this afternoon. That is why I ask the hon. the Minister that that board should be imbued with a spirit of realism. I am not saying that they should give away public money unnecessarily; I am not saying that they should risk public money where they will never be able to recover that money. But we have to be realistic too. We have to bear in mind what the current land prices are. We should not say, for example, that because a farmer is able to keep so many sheep on one morgen—a criterion „laid down in an office—and because so much mealies can be produced on one morgen, these office criteria have to be applied. We should rather determine what the real position is in each area.

Many of the recommendations made by the credit committees are disregarded. This is another matter I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice. These committees render services voluntarily. They know the area in which they operate. For that reason I appeal to the board this afternoon to approach matters of this type with some realism because, Sir, it is there to help the farmers and it will help the farmers only if it displays some realism when dealing with these matters.

Mr. Chairman, if one listens to the hon. member for Heilbron, and particularly to the first few points he made, one cannot but come to the conclusion that that hon. member is also convinced that all is not well as far as our agricultural policy and industry in South Africa is concerned.

That is what that American you now have is telling you.

I do not know to what American the hon. the Prime Minister is referring. It is a fabrication of one of his newspapers.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister of Transport could do with some consultants to tell him how to straighten out the Railways. If one listens to the hon. member for Heilbron one has to come to the conclusion that all is not well. The hon. member for Bethlehem made a plea to-day for an increase in the wheat price for the new season— the hon. member said it should be “considerably” higher. We on this side of the House agreed with that hon. member because we know that here is an industry …

What do you say about the bread price?

Give me a chance. Because here is an industry which is practised particularly in the Western Province and in the South-Western districts, an industry which, as the hon. member rightly said, has to make way for sheep and wool farming nowadays. Yet we know that we have to import millions of tons of wheat every year to meet our own needs. It will be interesting to see the Minister’s reaction, because after all he is the man who has to judge in this regard. Judging by his speech in the Other Place, he considers it wrong to apply different norms in certain industries. We now want to tell the hon. the Minister that he should not be afraid of applying different norms. If there is a branch of our agricultural industry which is hampered and which needs encouragement, he should take positive action and render the necessary assistance. It is not only in the interests of the farmers but also in the interests of South Africa. It is in the interests of the consumer in this country that the farmer should be able to meet the needs of the consumer. We know that as far as wheat is concerned we cannot nearly meet our own needs. I should therefore like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Bethlehem said and express the hope that the Minister will give thorough consideration to the hon. member’s suggestion.

It is also essential that the Minister should tell us what his attitude is in respect of this side’s contention that farming in South Africa should be made more profitable. What are the hon. the Minister and his Department going to do to keep production costs in the country as low as possible? What are the Minister and his Department going to do to stimulate domestic consumption in respect of products of which surpluses may occur in future? What are they going to do to find a better foreign market for those products? We know that in respect of the maize surplus we shall have shortly, the decision was taken to reduce the farmer’s price. But, Sir, there is no corresponding reduction in the price to the consumer; it remains absolutely unchanged. The Minister and his Deputy Minister should know that many of our maize products can be used by our meat farmers—both sheep and cattle farmers. The majority of the sheep and wool farmers can provide additional feed to their stock, particularly during winter months.

Are you aware of the fact that the farmer can buy at a lower price?

Yes, I shall also come to the point made by the hon. member. I want to tell this hon. member at once, however, that although the farmer, when he buys large quantities, can get it at, say, R3.07 a bag—which is the price at which the Maize Board makes it available—the fact of the matter is nevertheless that when the maize arrives on the farm the price is no longer R3.07 a bag, because by that time the Minister of Transport has caused a considerable rise in the price so that the maize would then cost, say, R3.85 a bag.

I want to suggest for the Minister’s consideration that he should appreciate that the South African winter is almost as stringent as a drought. Loss of weight is enormous unless there is additional feeding. Then, too, there is not one reputable farmer who does not realize that at the current prices plus the railage it is impossible for him to afford additional feeding during the winter. We on this side say that the Government should give favourable consideration to a winter subsidy on maize and other fodders, for example lucerne. I am convinced that if that happened we would help to get rid of a large portion of the surpluses of those foodstuffs. A large portion of the maize surpluses will be used by our stock farmers. I want to put it to the Minister that as from May, if there are no early summer rains, the stock farmers of South Africa suffer tremendous losses. For five or six months we are therefore dependent on natural grazing, and if we can do additional feeding during that period it will have a tremendous influence on our meat production and also on our wool. Additional feeding will make it easier to resist the onslaught of late rains. Surely it is a fact that if one has to go through a severe winter there is a tremendous loss of weight, and if one does not get enough rain in the early summer one loses even more. This is the type of thing we want the hon. the Minister and his Deputy to consider. They are too much inclined to think that the only role they can play in order to give new impetus to the industry is to interfere even more with the freedom of the farmer. Of course they are hesitant to interfere with the freedom of the farmer, so hesitant that they want to do absolutely nothing and that they fail completely to see what can in fact be done. But here is an aspect of farming, namely wintering, with regard to which they can in fact do something. They are afraid that they will do too much for the maize farmer or for the wheat farmer or for the wool farmer or for the cattle farmer, because if they do too much for one the other will say that they are doing too much for those people. They are so scared of leaving the well-beaten path. They prefer to act as some kind of platform counsellor to the farmers, and that is what the farmers no longer want. They have enough counsellors.

There is no need for the Ministers to act as platform counsellors to the farmers. This is the kind of thing the farmers want the Minister and his Deputy to consider.

I rise in the first place to thank the hon. the Minister— and in this regard I associate myself with the hon. member for Cradock—for what was done for the farmers during the recent drought. I am now speaking on behalf of the entire sheep industry in the Republic. We appreciate the assistance the State has given the stock farmers. The entire sheep industry was on the brink of an abyss and would have collapsed if it had not been for the fact that the rains started coming at the end of January. The hon. member for East London (City) accused the Government of being negligent, because there was no fodder in the country. We know there was no fodder, but that is because we had continuous droughts in the country for four or five years. There was not one dam in the Republic which had enough water to irrigate lucerne and other crops. After the generous rains we have met with further adversity as far as fodder is concerned, namely that the lucerne farmers at Keimoes and Upington lost two crops as a result of the floods.

In other parts of the country two crops were also lost as a result of the continuous rains. It could not be cut, and it stayed on the fields and rotted. The hon. member for East London (City) knows that. The fact of the matter is that we shall again have a shortage of fodder in the coming year. Fortunately we have grass, but we shall not have abundant lucerne. I hope the Opposition will not say later that the Government should see to it that it stops raining, but the hon. member should not blame the Government out of hand. He himself knows that if his sheep are thin and his workers want meat, he has to go and buy it. As a practical farmer the hon. member for Newton Park should also know that. Over there is the hon. member for Albany. I find it extraordinary that practical farmers should attack the Government on certain aspects. They attack the Government and say it should have provided in a matter over which it has not the least control. I therefore want to thank the hon. the Minister for that assistance of R34 million he gave to the sheep industry during this severe period.

You should thank us.

Why? That hon. member does not know what he is talking about. It is no trouble at all having a dry district declared drought-stricken, nor was there the slightest difficulty in obtaining a fodder loan or a subsidy. There was no delay, and yet the hon. member says we should thank them!

But I should like to come to a point that arises from this. I want to break a lance for our wool farmers in particular. We suffered heavy losses during the drought, and it rained, but unfortunately it did not rain wool and money. I want to ask the Minister that the period for the repayment of those fodder loans, which now have to be repaid within five years, should be extended. As a practical man I do not think the farmers will be able to repay it within five years. I hope the Minister will extend it to ten years, if necessary. My reason for this is that as a result of the drought the wool production decreased by approximately 20 per cent in the past year, no matter what the price is. I do not want to bore the Committee with figures, but in weight the production was approximately 20 per cent less than in the previous year. All the wool brokers will tell you that their intake was 20 per cent less than in the previous year. But in addition to that there is the decrease in the price of wool. I asked several wool farmers and they informed me that their AM and AF lines were fetching five to six cents a pound less this year, and the lower grades from nine cents to ten cents a pound. In other words, the farmer’s income is at least 25 per cent to 30 per cent less than in the previous year. I hope I shall one day have the opportunity to address a meeting in that hon. member’s constituency. Then I shall tell the people about the attitude he adopted here during the discussions in an agricultural debate.

Before my time expires I want to ask the Minister something else. This relates to the valuation of the riparian properties above the Van der Kloof Dam. The dam is situated in my constituency and I receive requests every day that the valuations should now be made, because there are quite a few young farmers whose land has been or is going to be expropriated, and they want to know more or less what they will get for their land in order that they may estimate what it will cost them to carry on farming in future. Then there are cases of persons who are confronted with great financial difficulties as a result of the drought. They should also like to have a valuation of their land in order to ask their bank for extended facilities on the basis of that valuation. Even if the money is not made available to the riparian owners immediately, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to have this valuation carried out as soon as possible. I know that the farmers have been informed that they themselves must get valuators to valuate their farms and that the State itself will then also have the farms valuated. The two valuations will then be compared and on the basis of that a compromise will be reached. We should not like to have a repetition of what happened in the case of the Verwoerd Dam. In that case the valuations were so widely divergent that it was impossible to reconcile valuation A with valuation B. In this case the valuations should be of such a nature that we shall be more or less able to give satisfaction to all the farmers. The farmers themselves do not know how to set about matters. We have just had another case at the Verwoerd Dam, at the tunnel where the road is, where one valuator valued a farm at R10,000 and the next valuator at R22,000. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to appoint a panel of valuators to valuate the farms and inform the farmers of the valuations. If those valuations are at all reasonable, there will be general satisfaction among the farmers. I just want to repeat my request that this valuation should be carried out as soon as possible.

I have listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Colesberg …

You had better support him.

That remains to be seen. I appreciate what he said about the sheep industry because obviously it is a subject which is very close to my heart and it is a subject about which I know quite a lot, although the hon. the Minister may not agree with me. I gave some of his sheep the first prize at the Goodwood Show the other day. Sir, I think what the hon. member said is substantially correct. The Merino wool industry has certainly taken a very severe drubbing in this drought. We are faced with lower returns, up to 10 cents per lb. on our wool and we also note that interest rates on our bonds are gradually going up. Things are becoming very serious. I think that we can say by and large that what the Government did for the sheep industry during the drought was adequate, but I would not like to leave the Minister with quite the same impression as the hon. member did perhaps that there is no room for improvement. I believe that there is still considerable room for improvement in some of the services that were given but like the hon. member I also thank the Government for the services that were given. I do hope that when we draw the Government’s attention to certain shortcomings they will take us seriously.

Sir, I really want to refer to the dairy industry, the subject on which I spoke on Friday. I was grateful to have the hon. the Minister’s reply. I have studied his reply to my speech. The theme which he took was that the dairy industry could not really expect him to guarantee prices for any distance into the future because the economic law of supply and demand had to be taken into consideration, and that where we got surpluses, prices had to be reduced in order to curtail production. Sir, this is the very point that I want to take up with the hon. the Minister. My whole object in speaking on this particular subject is to try to get an undertaking from the Government that we will not have the same state of affairs that we had some years ago when the Government actually sponsored and fostered and tried to build up the dairy industry. Then when we came to 1962 and there were the first signs of overproduction, the Government curtailed the prices very considerably. All those farmers who had been involved in large capital expenditure in building up their dairy industry, found themselves facing very serious losses. The undertaking I want from the Government is that the situation will not be allowed to arise again; that is my whole plea. I want to say too that when we deal with the dairy industry and with dairy products, we are dealing with a very important item of food in our economy.

When we look at the South African situation, we see the Government spending approximately a quarter of our national product on Defence; we see that civil defence arrangements are being made at considerable expense and we see a vast programme of oil research, all of which we support provided all the money is being wisely spent all the time, but it makes us realize that the Government anticipates that something may well go wrong at some future time. The Government clearly anticipates that an emergency may arise, hence all these preparations.

Sir, this is where I come in with my plea in the interests of the dairy industry. I believe that butter, cheese and milk are the most essential foodstuffs in any country in which there is a state of emergency. I go further and I say it is imperative that we should take all the necessary steps at this stage to ensure that we have a permanent and strong dairy industry. Sir, the dairy industry is not like other agricultural undertakings. You can become a wool farmer overnight; you can buy a 1,000 hamels provided you have surplus grazing and you could be a wool producer if you have a lot of grass on your farm and you can buy a 100 head of oxen and overnight you can become a beef producer, but what is required in the dairy industry is a long-term investment. It requires the expenditure of very considerable amounts of money. The dairy farmer has to equip himself with the necessary knowledge and know-how. These things cannot be accomplished overnight. Sir, I am emphasizing a very salient point when I say that the dairy industry as such cannot adjust itself rapidly to quick fluctuations in the price of its product. Therefore I believe that we on this side of the House are entitled to insist that the Government, in any future plan, give very special consideration to these aspects to ensure that its policy as far as the dairy industry is concerned is both long-term and sound.

The hon. member for Walmer, who has just sat down, pleaded that we should place our dairy industry on a firm basis. It is a plea in which we can support him, but the hon. member should not lose sight of the fact that dairy production can easily be doubled through one’s feeding system. One can most certainly increase one’s milk production to a large extent by feeding the animals correctly. In view of the fact that some years ago we were confronted with serious surpluses, we should be very careful to avoid a recurrence of that situation, and it is therefore essential that we should place this industry on a secure basis.

We all appreciate that dairy production is strongly dependent upon the elements of nature, and for that reason we find that in times of drought the dairy production sinks to a low mark, and when there are abundant rains, the opposite obtains. I think that the prices paid for dairy products during the past season, as far as my knowledge of dairy farmers goes, and there are many of them in my constituency, were quite satisfactory to the farmers. The prices were in accordance with their wishes, and for the past years the dairy farmers have been very satisfied. I cannot refrain from conveying my gratitude to the hon. the Minister on behalf of those farmers for the relief and the State contributions they have received, namely the emergency premium granted on butter-fat and the increased prices. From time to time the necessary adjustments will be made in respect of dairy prices. We know that in terms of the Marketing Act there is always an opportunity to make those adjustments.

I have actually risen to speak on a different matter. It is also a matter which relates to our Marketing Act, and I want to say in advance that I am most hesitant in mentioning it here. This relates to the meat question, a point which I raised at an agricultural union congress. We know that there are 19 different marketing schemes under the Marketing Act. These schemes are divided according to four methods of operation.

There is the A method, namely the single channel fixed price schemes, in other words, a fixed price to both the consumer and the producer. Then there is the B scheme, namely a single channel floor scheme, in terms of which the board buys in, gives an advance and later pays out the balance. The C scheme is the surplus removal scheme which is based mainly on a guaranteed floor price. The D scheme is a supervisory scheme. 73.43 per cent of all our products are marketed under these 19 different schemes. In this respect fresh milk has set a commendable example in respect of the method of marketing and distributing, where the regions are demarcated and there is no longer the duplication that existed previously. Previously three milk delivery vans delivered milk in one street, which merely increased the cost to the consumer. Now areas have been demarcated for the delivery of fresh milk, and in this way the price the consumer eventually has to pay is greatly reduced. I think it is an idea which should be further developed. It has been proved that it can be done with great success in the case of fresh milk, and I feel that it should also be extended to meat.

As regards meat handled under category C of the Marketing Act, where there is a guaranteed floor price, we feel that it should be moved to category A, where there is a fixed price. I mention this because it is of particular interest to us that we as producers should know what we receive for our product; we are not speculators. I also suggest that the consumer in this country should be protected.

At present the consumer sometimes pays three times as much for certain types of meat as the producer receives for it. It is so unnecessary that there should be that tremendous disparity between consumers’ prices and producers’ prices. Our main object should be to get the consumer and the producer closer together and not to feed a few middle-men. In my constituency meat control has been extended, and there we have had a practical example of the difference made by distribution. After meat control had been extended, there were quite a few meat distributors, but the moment control was extended all slaughtering had to be done at the abattoirs and then the monopoly took over to a very large extent. Meat prices rose by at least 8c a lb. to the consumer.

Another example is broilers. The disparity between the prices received by the producer and those paid by the consumer in the case of a broiler is very small. If we apply the same profit margin to meat distribution we shall find that in most cases the consumer will be able to buy 25 per cent more cheaply than at present, which will prove to be of tremendous benefit as far as our cost of living is concerned. In respect of this matter I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether we cannot make it possible to eliminate the tremendously high cost of the middle-man. It can only be done if meat is marketed under category A and one obviates the duplication which arises if butchers have to deliver a piece of mincemeat in the same street, and consequently ask such high distribution charges, which the consumer eventually has to pay. I feel that the consumer costs can be reduced tremendously if the same demarcation of areas can also be applied. This is possible only if there is a fixed price, and care should also be taken that the consumers are not exploited, as is the case at present. This profit margin between the price paid by the consumer and the price received by the producer is in my view much too high, and I feel that something should be done about it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I do not want to reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District!, because I presume the Minister will reply to them. I just want to say that in the Marketing Act the farmer has a very good weapon, and any small improvement that can be effected can only be beneficial, but we should not tamper too much with the provisions of the Marketing Act. This afternoon we had the interesting phenomenon here that even the hon. member for Walmer said that the assistance rendered by the Government was adequate. It is very good that appreciation should be forthcoming from the United Party as well. We appreciate the assistance rendered to farmers who experienced hard times. This afternoon I want to say something about the new Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. As we could expect, there was some confusion between the Department and the farmers, but that confusion soon disappeared and I think the new Department is rapidly getting into its stride and is gaining the confidence of our farmers. The Minister gave us a condensed explanation of the procedure farmers have to follow in the case of applications, and I just want to quote some sentences from that condensed survey. He said—

Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with what is written there. In my view those few sentences contain very important principles of farming. The first principle is the co-ordination of assistance to farmers. The second principle is the proper planning of farms. I therefore want to make some observations in connection with assistance rendered to our farmers; firstly, the assistance rendered to farmers who cannot be helped in any other way. For this reason, and because these farmers are people who cannot raise money in any other way, I want to say that we should regard this assistance as temporary assistance. Once a man has come to the point where he can be assisted again by the Agricultural Bank or by the ordinary banks, he should go back to those banks. Then some other young beginner should be assisted by this Department. Another observation I want to make is that in this assistance we should give preference to certain groups of people. Here I am thinking in particular of our young farmers and our farm foremen who have proved that they can be successful farmers—men who have worked on a farm and who have shown what they are capable of. If we consider our practising farmers, we notice that they fall in a fairly high age group. The average age of our farmers is 48 years. There is the danger that if our farmers become too old not enough new ideas will be introduced, because our young men will not be interested enough to farm. Another observation I want to make is that consideration should be given to rendering assistance to part-time farmers as well, namely people who have other jobs, in order that they may also go and farm. If he wishes to go and farm on an economic unit and he can make a good beginning by earning an additional income, perhaps through a salary or some other income, he should also be assisted. At present such a man does not come into consideration at all for the assistance provided by the Department of Agricultural Credit. He has to be a full-time practising farmer. I think there is a very good case to be made out for rendering assistance to the part-time farmers, who own or can obtain economic units, to keep them going.

To be a successful farmer is quite a difficult task. A great deal of assistance is necessary. In the U.S.A., for example, we find that there is one agricultural economist to every 48 farmers. Here the number is much smaller. I think we have too few agricultural economists. At the transfer from one department to the other the Department of Lands closed its offices in the various large towns. I wonder whether that was not a mistake. Was there not a great deal of work for those agricultural economists and for those officers, to keep a better check on our farmers who receive assistance from the Government? I wonder whether the men who will now be charged with the supervisory work will be as well informed on agricultural economics. Now there are only the officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Credit extension to a farmer should be reinforced by technical advice, according to the individual needs of each farm. There should be good co-ordination. I have read to you what the condensed survey said. There must be good co-ordination between Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and Agricultural Economics. I wonder whether we should not get more officials to help establish the farmer. Farm planning should be one of the basic requirements before anybody can obtain credit. A plan should be drawn up which will include the crops to be planted on the farm, the livestock to be kept and the farming methods, and any major changes in that plan should first be approved by an advisory council. A budget should be drawn un for every farm. If we could draw up such a proper budget—I am not saying it is easy to do so; i will take a great deal of study—before we decide to assist that farmer, we shall be able to determine at once whether the farm is an economic unit. On this basis we shall then be able to decide whether it is worthwhile assisting that man. Something else which I think can be very useful is that a farmer who is assisted by this Department should be required to keep records in order that we may be able to see from year to year what progress has been made.

I think I have made out a case for more agricultural economists, I think it is most essential that we should have them. I should just like to summarize what the task of such agricultural economists will be. Firstly, they have to draw up farm plans. Secondly, they have to recommend loans to the Agricultural Credit Board. Thirdly, they have to give technical advice and visit farms. Fourthly, they have to see to it that interest is collected. Fifthly, they should have session on the local committees in order to give advice in those committees. Sixthly, they have to carry out annual inspections of every farm that falls under the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. I think that if we have such people who can visit farmers regularly and report regularly, those farmers will stand a much better chance of being successful economically. For that reason I want to ask that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure should show a lively interest and should assist in the training of agricultural economists. I think it will be of tremendous value to our farmers in future.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on Vote No. 29. Before I come to that, I just want to say that I have seen such a strange phenomenon in this House that I am not quite sure where I am. I am in such heart-felt agreement with the last two speakers on the Government side that I almost want to second every word said by them, [interjections.] The various points made by the hon. member for Humansdorp on the Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure Vote with regard to agricultural economists, extension officers, planning of where assistance is to be rendered, etc., are wonderful suggestions. We should very much like to endorse them.

I now want to come to the previous speaker on that side of the House. I think it was the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District). When I introduced a private motion relating to the margin between the producer and the consumer, the Minister himself paid me the compliment of replying to it. He then said that he did not believe the margin was too large. I now want to leave the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) to the mercy of the hon. the Minister. Let the hon. the Minister reply to him.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Colesberg is not here. He referred to an observation I had made in connection with roughage. I should like to remind the House that this side has been pleading for years that roughage as such should be used more advantageously and that it should be sorted in some other form. We should keep supplies of it. I am convinced that we shall ultimately persuade the Minister to agree in this regard. Even today the hon. member for Colesberg said that as a result of damage by rain, rotting of lucerne, etc., we shall not have as much rough-age as we thought we would. I agree. In the town in which the hon. member lives a company is at present using roughage together with concentrates to make feeding pellets. Thus we also find that in the immediate vicinity where I live there are already 16 of these installations, which cost from R4,000 to R10.000 each. It is not done on any co-operative basis. Each one is owned by a private owner or by a small company. That is not the way the fodder supply in our country should be handled. It should be done co-operatively. It can be decentralized, and there can be ten cooperatives if necessary.

Am I to prohibit the companies doing that from selling feed?

No, it is not necessary to prohibit them. But so much finance is necessary to be able to do that. My plea has always been that as far as initial outlay is concerned, co-operatives and companies should be assisted. The supplies should first be obtained, and after that matters will take their own course. Surely it is no problem, once one has the supplies, to sell them and buy some more. But it takes a tremendous deal of additional capital to be able to do so. That is the point which we discuss so frequently.

I do not want to say any more about this; I want to come back to the question of agricultural credit. It is my experience—and probably also that of many hon. members here —that a farmer who has a Land Bank mortgage is referred to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. After he obtained a Land Bank mortgage he took up huge fodder loans and incurred a great deal of debt at the commercial banks. He approaches the Land Bank and requests a higher valuation of his farm, and then asks for additional facilities.

If the Land Bank refuses, he is obviously a client for Agricultural Credit. But then we find what the hon. member for Heilbron said, and on which I am in agreement with him. A tremendous number of applications are received by the Department but only a certain percentage of them are granted. I would presume that some of them are not deserving cases; all of them certainly cannot be deserving cases. Some farmers have reached a stage where they can almost no longer be rehabilitated. Yet hon. members on both sides of this House know that many of these cases are go-ahead young farmers who fell into debt as a result of the drought and of having to buy stock feed. They had to take up tremendous loans and now the commercial banks are pressing them. The Land Bank does not want to help them, and then the Department of Agricultural Credit also rejects their applications. Recently, when a deserving young farmer’s application was before the Department, the reply was: “No, we know the young man—his father can still underwrite him.” The father was a man of very advanced age. That should not be the approach. If a man is to be rehabilitated, he and his whole family should not first be bankrupted before he is assisted. He should be assisted as long as he is a deserving case who can be assisted, and as long as there is any possibility of rehabilitating him. I want to agree with what the hon. member for Humansdorp said. It is not something which can be undertaken without planning. I am not suggesting that the Department should assist everybody who applies for assistance. But when a unit is well planned, when there is a good possibility of rehabilitation, when a committee says it is an economic unit, when it is felt that if the man is assisted he can rehabilitate himself, then he should be assisted. It is no use saying that it is merely “temporary assistance”, because all financial assistance is temporary assistance. The assistance will in any event have to be rendered long enough to enable the farmer to free himself from his debts in order that he may qualify once again as a client of an ordinary lender and eventually get away from the Department of Agricultural Credit. I do not think this kind of assistance can be rendered on a basis of five years and even less; it shall have to be extended further. The point I want to make is this: Too many cases are rejected; too little money is made available to help deserving cases. If one looks at the estimates, one sees that last year R12.2 million was made available, whereas the amount this year in respect of assistance to farmers is R14 million. That means that there has been an increase of only R2.2 million over the year we have gone through, a year in which the farmers were afflicted by this terrible drought. The amount in respect of purchases of land is only R1.4 million more. Surely we all know that last year was the hardest year for the past 30 years, as far as our agricultural industry is concerned. Consequently we can expect a tremendous number of applications to be made to the Farmers’ Assistance Boards or to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The Agricultural Credit Division in particular will receive many applications. I believe that the Land Tenure Division, which deals with the consolidation of lands, can go ahead gradually. But here we are dealing with an urgent problem: The man is in financial difficulties, and if the bank presses him and he cannot get assistance anywhere else—not at the Land Bank either—then the only source left to him is the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. And if the Department refuses to assist him, if they reject his application, he simply has to go under. I do not think this should happen to a young farmer who is an asset to the country. There are young farmers who go ahead, farmers who are an asset to the country, farmers who are of benefit to the country and who have all the knowledge and initiative. It is frequently the farmer’s very initiative which landed him in a quandary. A farmer may perhaps undertake tremendous expansion and water conservation works; he may have planned and developed his farm, and is then hit by the drought. Mr. Chairman, I know of farmers who used their own machines for months, to erect walls and to carry out the planning of their farms according to schedule. When they completed everything the year before last, the drought hit them and those schemes did not get a drop of water until it started raining last November or December. Then the farmer is not only burdened with all the debts he has incurred on the farm planning and everything it comprises, but also has to pay his share after his subsidy has been calculated, and in addition he has this accumulated drought debt.

That is why it is so important to me that the Minister and the Department should see what can be done to adjust the facilities and to make them flexible in order that the deserving cases may be assisted rather than to let them go under.

Mr. Chairman, we should like to reply to the statement the hon. member for East London (City) has just made. He suggested that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure was not meeting the demands which were being made upon it. However, before passing judgment in this regard, we must take into consideration that that Department has barely been functioning for six months. After all, the Department has to be given time and the opportunity to show the public what its policy is and what may be expected from it. As an hon. member rightly asked earlier on: Have we made great play in the country outside of what can be expected of this Department? We should realize, however, that we are still living under abnormal agricultural conditions and that this Department, which is still in its infancy, has to contend with problems the Land Bank has not experienced so far. That is why I think that it is fair that we should afford the Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure Board of that Department the opportunity of proving itself.

Now I want to refer to a specific point that was raised by the hon. member, namely the inadequate assistance which is being rendered to farmers. I want to say at once that, just as misunderstanding and ignorance prevail in this House as to the functions and policy of that Board, misunderstanding and ignorance also prevail outside this House. It is indeed true that the most ridiculous applications for assistance are being made to that Department. From the nature of the case it is simply impossible to grant these applications, and when we examine these matters more closely, we shall grant that the local committees and the Agricultural Credit Board are perfectly right. The hon. member also referred to the consolidation of debts. In spite of everything, we received 325 applications over a period of six months which ended on 31st March, 1967. Of those applications 235 were approved. In 160 cases consolidation of debts was actually granted. In 75 cases other arrangements were made. These were satisfactory arrangements which satisfied the wants of the applicants in question. That is why we say that it is unfair to suggest that Department is not doing its duty or satisfying the demands which are made upon it. The hon. member also referred to the figures in the Estimates. He referred to the slight upward trend in respect of capital which is being made available. But if we analyse the available figures, we shall see that for this period of six months an amount of R14,500,000 was voted for that purpose, and the Department has in fact already spent R17,800,000. That shows, therefore, how that Department has been keeping pace with the needs of our agricultural sector. In fact, more has been allocated than was originally provided for in the Estimates. As this is the position, it is unfair to level such criticism as the hon. member did. It is in fact true that we should like to see that new Department enjoying the confidence of our people; that our farmers will in future approach that Department with greater confidence, because it is a fact that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure was actually established for that category of farmer who is unable to obtain assistance elsewhere. This is in fact the person who cannot help himself and who cannot obtain financial assistance from any other body. That is why we also want to request the Department and its board to pay as little attention as possible to the risk factor. What we mean by saying that, is that when this matte’· is considered, and the integrity and all the other factors which are sought in the applicant are satisfactory, then the Department should not concentrate so much on the economic aspect and security. I am not advocating uneconomic financing, but I want to point out that the risks the Department can take are greater than those which private financial institutions can take, because the Department has a greater measure of control over such cases and is in a much better position to screen them. We know from figures furnished by the Land Bank, which is a different institution but functions very much on the same lines, that the losses sustained on acquisitions of land are very slight. We should like to wish this Department, together with its officials and its board and the Minister who is in charge thereof, everything of the best, and we hope that they will come up to expectations.

But I actually rose to talk about a matter which has called forth a great deal of unjustified criticism from the other side of the House. It concerned the determination of agricultural producer prices. From the nature of the case it is something about which all of us are concerned. Any farmer—irrespective of the party he belongs to—does at least try to plead for the best marketing facilities. But we must be realistic when we discuss these matters. We should not create the impression outside that certain boards should be under suspicion. That is neither reasonable nor fair. I think that we should keep our balance in this matter and, as other hon. members have often pleaded here, we should not make a political debate out of these matters which are beneficial to the farmer and to agriculture.

If we analyse the actual position, we find that there are 19 statutory agricultural control bodies in terms of the Marketing Act, boards which control approximately 73 per cent of the total agricultural production, and we find that a reasonably sound position prevails even in these particularly abnormal circumstances in which agriculture finds itself. In what way are those 19 control boards constituted? That is elementary knowledge for every member of this House, because we all know that those boards are constituted for the purpose of maintaining balance in agriculture as an industry. The primary producer, the consumer, commerce and all other bodies which are concerned with that commodity, are represented on those boards. It also stands to reason that the persons who are being appointed to those boards, are in fact people who have over a long period of time rendered faithful and dedicated service in respect of that particular agricultural commodity. They are people who have been leaders over the years—whether as businessmen, producers or consumers—and why then should it be the case that, the moment such a leader is being appointed to a board of control, we should assume that he will lose the usefulness he evidenced in the past? Why should we assume that he will all of a sudden start doing things just to please the Minister or the political party? No, I think that it is very unfair, because we are dealing here with people of very high integrity.

But the Minister is the one who does not support them. The Minister rejects their recommendations.

We want to point out that those boards have at their disposal technical staff who have made it their task in life to serve on those particular boards. That is why I think that we may accept, and that the producers must accept, that the boards of control have been set up in such a way that they may employ all their energies and talents for providing the farmer with nothing but the best. That is why we say that there is no room whatever for unprofessional conduct. But we should also like to point out that it is not fair to create the impression outside that everything that goes wrong in agriculture in respect of price determination, is in fact to be blamed on the Minister, or on the board of control or on the marketing board. We must accept that as far as price determination and cost structure are concerned, a great deal of responsibility should also be borne by the producer. It is obvious to me that in many cases the producer is not always prepared to bear that portion of his own responsibility in the industry. [Time expired.]

I am sorry that the hon. member for Mooi River is not present. During the debate on Education the other day, he said that he liked “mixing” in schools. I should like to join those hon. members who talked about the question of agricultural training, the background which is given to farmers, but I want to apply myself more specifically to Natal, because the position there is different from that in the other provinces. In Natal we have 3,939 farming units north of the Tugela River and only 10 per cent of the farmers on those units have any agricultural training or background. We find that the agricultural training that they have to receive is subdivided as follows: There are 16 agricultural high schools of which seven are situated in the Cape Province, five in the Transvaal, three in the Free State and one in Natal.

You are discussing the wrong Vote.

In future a farmer will have to have more and more agricultural background before he can start farming. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, so the hon. the Minister informed us last year, lays down the condition that before they grant assistance to a farmer, that farmer must have received extensive agricultural training. I said that I was referring to Natal, because we have the position there that training is only being provided in one agricultural high school, and until recently its medium of instruction was English only. In addition this school is situated far away from the northern part, with the result that the agricultural training that pupils receive there, is adapted to the intensive agriculture which is being practised in the Natal Midlands, so much so that the Department saw the sense of establishing an experimental farm in Northern Natal, near Dundee. This experimental farm is not enough. It should be possible for the people in whose interests the research is being conducted there, to assimilate the results of such research. To be able to do that, it would be a good thing if an agricultural high school could be established in Northern Natal. I say that at the present moment there are approximately 90 students attending this institution at Mooi River. This institution was set up in such a way that the pupils who are being provided with agricultural training there, cannot take a university degree, because their course does not include the necessary science subject which is a requirement for admission to a university; the result is that many of the parents, particularly some of these 3,939 owners of small holdings or farms, are forced to send their children to the Transvaal and to the Free State to take such a course there. In 1966 approximately 100 of these children had to leave Natal so as to receive their agricultural training elsewhere. This cannot be a sound state of affairs. I am saying that these services do not fall directly under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. If they had in fact fallen under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, then we in Natal would not have been treated like poor relatives; we would at least have had the right to have our children trained through the medium of their own language.

That outcry has become hackneyed.

It may have become hackneyed, but I can assure the hon. member that all these pinpricks will have the effect that there will in future be very few U.P. members representing Natal in this House.

Then I should like to say a few words about another matter that was raised here, namely the question of marketing. I know that there is another hon. member who will speak about specific markets. It is so easy for hon. members on the other side to rise here and to blame the Government for practices which tend to widen the gap between the consumer and the producer price, but if you had paid a visit to the Cape Town market during the fruit season, then you would have seen that the farmers were selling their apples to so-called hawkers who fetch those apples on the farms and bring them to the market. But the Cape Town market administration refuses to allow the products of the bona fide farmer to be sold first. These apples belonging to speculators or hawkers are auctioned first at R1.50 and R1.60, as happened in the past season, and it is only when the market has virtually been satiated that the market administration sells the produce of bona fide farmers. What is more, at the Durban municipal market and at the Pietermaritzburg municipal market, a fair amount of provision is being made for separate facilities; I do not want to elaborate on this; I just want to say that the public supports those markets reasonably well, because there the various races are not being thrown together. We in Northern Natal have taken the bull by the horns and we have established home industries, a co-operative organization to which housewives belong, both those living in towns and those living on farms. They join these co-operative home industries and their surplus vegetables and baked products are displayed for sale at fixed prices, with the result that it is not necessary for the housewife there to pay 5 cents per pound for a pumpkin for which the farmer gets 10 cents in all. The housewife can do her buying there. She has to pay cash and she has to carry the products home herself. The accusation which is often made against producers, is that the consumer has to pay too much for farm produce, but sometimes I wonder whether the fault is not to be found in the changed circumstances in which we are living. We are becoming more and more ease-loving. We simply want to pick up the telephone and order what we require. There is a legion of additional services for which the distributors have to pay and which they, in turn, recover from the housewife, and eventually those very same housewives try to drive in a wedge between the consumer and the producer by claiming that the producer price is too high. Mr. Chairman, we established this home industry organization in the Northern Natal, and I can assure you that it works excellently; that the farmers are satisfied with the prices they receive; that the housewives who market their surplus produce there, are satisfied, and that the housewives are able to obtain fresh and tasty vegetables and fruit at reasonable prices. A similar scheme may perhaps be put into practice in the larger cities. I am convinced that it will bear good fruit. Then the Government will not always be blamed for prices getting out of hand, and then the producer will not be accused of being responsible for the high cost of living.

I always find it interesting to see how hon. members in an agricultural debate can agree and yet at the same time differ so much from one another. I am thinking for example of the hon. member for East London (City) who got up here and said that he was in complete agreement with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District). He said: “Look, there is a man with whom I agree,” but the hon. member does not agree with him. I now want to ascertain whether the hon. member for East London (City) really agrees with him. The solution which the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) suggested for reducing the margin between the producer’s price and the consumer’s price was a fixed price for meat for both the buyer and the seller. Does the hon. member for East London (City) agree with me? [Interjection.] The hon. member stood up here and said to me: “Look how the two of us agree; what a good spirit,” but in reality the hon. member does not agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District).

I said that the margins were too great.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) suggested a method of reducing the margins; one may differ from him but he did nevertheless make a suggestion. However, the hon. member for East London (City) made no suggestion for reducing the margins. I am just mentioning this, Sir, to show you how easy it is to stand up in the House and discuss agricultural matters and state that there are a lot of people who agree with you, but if one begins to analyse the methods which they have suggested, then one finds that they differ from one another completely.

The hon. member for Newton Park said that farming should be made more profitable and that the Minister should see to it that it is made more profitable. He implied that the Government was doing absolutely nothing to make farming more profitable. The hon. member knows that that is not so. All the services which the Department of Agriculture supplies —information, research and all the other services—are specifically aimed at making farming more profitable; at enabling the farmer to make use of the aids at his disposal to place his farming on a more profitable basis. Then the hon. member comes along here and merely makes the general statement that the Government is doing nothing to help the farmer to make his industry more profitable. All that the hon. member has in mind when he talks about “profitable”, is a price, but a mere price in itself, accompanied by a negation of all sound farming practices, does not make farming profitable. The hon. member has said that the Government should not be afraid of supporting certain industries under certain circumstances. He maintains that I had allegedly said that one cannot support certain industries under certain circumstances. Mr. Chairman, I never said that. What I did say was that when one encourages an industry by means of a fixed price then one must be careful that one does not encourage that industry at the expense of other products which it may perhaps be possible to produce more profitably. That is what I said and I still adhere to that. Surely it is only logical. The Government has in the past given special encouragement to certain industries under special circumstances.

You were not afraid to do so then.

The Government is not afraid in any case, but one must consider what the effects of that special encouragement are going to be. If the effect of the special encouragement is going to be that an unmarketable surplus is going to be produced in that industry, either that or a surplus which will have to be sold at a very low price, then one must ask oneself whether the encouragement is justified, and that is what I said in reply to the representations which the hon. member for Walmer made here in regard to milk. One must encourage the dairy industry, and we have continued to do so during the drought years by means of an increased subsidy on the part of the State. We supported the price with an increased subsidy, but the hon. member wants me to say that there will never again be a decrease in the price. There is a simple reason why I cannot give such an undertaking. If the encouragement is going to mean that an unmarketable surplus of butter is going to be produced, then one cannot leave the price unchanged, because the only thing to which the producer reacts is the price which he obtains for his product. That is the only thing to which they react and if this encouragement is such that a tremendous surplus results, a surplus which cannot be sold, the only solution is a decrease in the price in order to discourage the production of that particular product a little so that the producer does not have to suffer such great losses. For who must bear these losses? Is it fair to expect the taxpayer to bear losses on unexportable surpluses over a long period of time? Surely the taxpayer cannot be expected to do a thing like that. That is the statement I made. It is very easy for the hon. member for Newton Park to make statements here. For example, he also said that the fixed prices of products should be higher and should be made more profitable for the farmer. But at the same time he said that this product, the price of which has been increased, should be sold to the consumer at a cheaper price.

I was talking about surpluses, as in the case of mealies.

Certain steps can be taken to make that possible—for example, a subsidy on the part of the State. That is already being done in the case of many fodder products, such as in the case of mealies. But it cannot be done in an unrestricted way. One cannot on the one hand place an unrestricted price on a product and on the other hand subsidize it. That is against all economic principles. In any case the taxpayer of the country will not in the long run be satisfied with that state of affairs. I say therefore that these kinds of statements are very easy to make. But the hon. member does not present the matter in its correct perspective, for he says that because it is the attitude of the Minister that prices cannot be restricted, it means that nothing can be done—that is his conclusion. But surely that is not so, and the hon. member knows it. Surely the hon. member knows that the Government has granted certain rebates in respect of the transportation of fodder by the S.A. Railways.

Only in times of drought.

No, it is not only in times of drought. It is being done throughout. Mealies, for example, are being transported at a special rebate by the S.A. Railways all the time. The State subsidizes a certain portion. This does not apply only in times of drought. Apart from the subsidies in times of drought there is a normal subsidy on the transportation of mealies. But all that I want to make the hon. member understand is that the measures cannot apply interminably. There are limits to what can be done and to what cannot be done. The hon. member ought to understand that. Nevertheless he comes here and states that because the Minister has said that it cannot be done in an unrestricted way, nothing can be done. That is the conclusion he arrives at. But I do not want to elaborate on this matter any more, because I want to deal with two other aspects.

The first is the question of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Hon. members spoke about the functions of this Department, and made certain requests in this regard. The allegation was made that those applying to the Department for financial assistance were not always accommodated and that the Board refused certain cases. In this regard I want to mention a few examples. As far as applications for production advances are concerned, during the first six months of the Department’s existence 84 per cent of those applications were granted; the same applies to 30 per cent of all applications for consolidation of debts, and to 34 per cent of the applications for land purchases. In this regard comparisons were made with the previous Department. But if we want to do that, we must remember that under the old Department of Lands a farmer could purchase State-owned land—except during the last two years of that Department’s existence after the Act had been amended in this respect—only if he had no land. But it must also be borne in mind that a person who purchased State-owned land in this way then became a settler under the Settlements Act. But that is no longer applicable to-day. To-day a man can purchase land for consolidation purposes without him becoming a settler. The same applies when a person is assisted in respect of his own land. It is obvious that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure was not established to help people who could receive assistance through the normal financial institutions or through the Land Bank. Hon. members are now asking the Department to be more realistic as far as valuations are concerned. But now they must remember that when these people come to the Department the other realistic valuators have given them up. The bankers, who make realistic valuations, have given them up by the time they come to the Department. The Land Bank has also given them up. Yet it is being asked that the Department should, as far as its valuations are concerned, be more realistic. [Interjection.] But what form of realism must be applied?

Surely the Land Bank has a very conservative norm.

I want to make it clear that this Department helps people who cannot obtain facilities through the normal channels. It is obvious that border-line cases do exist. I want to mention an example of the kind of application which is submitted to the Board and which is refused. Applications are made by people who require consolidation of debts to the amount of R88,000. But the total value of the applicant’s possessions is, for example, R350,000. Surely it was not the intention that cases like these should be helped through the Department—in fact, if that is the intention then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or the hon. member for East London (City), or even I may perhaps have to be helped. But it is not the intention that a person who can be helped through the normal channels, should have any share in the subsidized interest scheme. Let me mention another example. Suppose, for example, that a willing buyer purchases land from a willing seller at, say, R200 per morgen and then goes to the normal institutions and obtains a mortgage of R150 per morgen. Then after two years the person comes to the Department and wants us to give him R200 per morgen after he has already incurred debts. It is then said that if the land is not evaluated at R200 per morgen, it is not a realistic valuation, because the land is worth R200 per morgen. But the fact remains that this person with a mortgage of R150 has in two years’ time allowed it to increase to R200, and then wants the Department to valuate it as R200 per morgen. If that is done, where will that person end up after a further two years? The intention of the Department was not to see to it that a person who can purchase land at the prevailing high prices, obtains money from it. The basic function of the Department is to enable a person to develop and become independent. Where a person’s liabilities are such that this possibility is not open to him, how can he be helped?You would then be helping him to go backwards and not forwards. You would merely be delaying his downfall for a while.

The actual difference is nevertheless between 8½ per cent interest and 5 per cent interest.

Now there may be cases where the Board, on the one hand, may be of the opinion that a certain person would not be able to make the grade, whereas another person may have a different opinion in regard to the matter. It could be that the Board is wrong in its judgment, but then again the other man might also be wrong. And so we come to the borderline cases where it is a question of judgment. There are cases who could have got through with a little assistance. That is why the instruction to the Board is that where land is purchased for a person there must be the assurance that that person, with his ability, his finances and the price which he paid for the land, must be able to develop independently— in other words, what must be considered here is not only whether it is a safe investment for the Government’s money, but consideration must also be given to that person’s development. On the other hand again, where a person is already established on his land and has found himself in financial difficulties there, the consideration whether the money is safe or would be reasonably safe must carry weight and we must ask ourselves whether it would be a reasonable risk to take. Under those circumstances we will still be able to help him. If we were to labour under the illusion that this Board must grant a loan in respect of every application which is submitted to it, then I say that this Parliament will have to make hundreds of millions of rand available for that purpose.

Nobody says that.

I am not saying that they are saying that. I am merely mentioning it as a fact. But it is being said that the Board makes too many refusals and that it is not realistic. There can therefore be cases like that. There can be exceptional cases where it could be said that the Board could have acted more realistically. I am not denying it. It is a question of judgment. Basically it still means that most of these cases which are deserving ones, according to the norms which I mentioned, are being helped. This is being done in regard to the two categories which I mentioned, namely the acquisition of land for expansion, because the farmer has a unit which is too small, and cases where assistance is really necessary. The fact remains that the Agricultural Credit Board is not a body which has to finance farmers so that they can own large units. It is a body which must only undertake financing in order to enable a farmer to farm on a reasonably economic basis. If this Board subsequently has to go and save every person who purchased land at high prices—and we get many examples of this—and subsequently found himself in difficulties, then we would simply be helping to make land prices even more uneconomic. That is simply how things stand. As one of the hon. members said here, the Board has been in operation for six months. It will, of course, have to learn from experience. Hon. members can realize that, during the period in which the Board has been in operation, there has been a tremendous pressure on it. I mentioned the cases to you. If hon. members were to glance at the figures published for the last two years they would see that last year more than R9 million was spent. This year it is more than R15 million. Hon. members will realize that the Administration and the Board itself are sitting with this tremendous number of applications. There are production loan applications, consolidation applications, applications for the purchase of land, and so on, which of course created problems for the Board in the initial stages. I am convinced that any birth pangs which there may perhaps have been, will have been eliminated and that the Board will function according to expectations.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein District spoke about the question of fixed prices for stock and fixed selling prices for meat. I have already referred to that. I want to tell the hon. member that that experiment has already been tried out in the past, with the result that we sometimes had surpluses on the market and that we sometimes had tremendous shortages. One of the problems experienced with the Marketing Act is that when there is a fixed price we eliminate the price determining function which should exist in any marketing system. We eliminate completely the price determining function of supply and demand. Then members of a marketing board have to sit round a table with a Minister and determine what the price determining function would have been under certain circumstances. Sometimes one is able to form an almost correct judgment, but very often the judgment can be quite wrong. That is why it is important that we should not, in the case of perishable products, eliminate that price determining function from marketing completely. If that happens we cannot draw meat to the market when there is a shortage, or force down the market if there are surpluses. In the case of a perishable product such as meat we must have the attraction in times of shortages and we must have the means of forcing the market down in times of surplus. That is why such a scheme can only be a success when one has a floor price. It cannot be a success if there is a fixed price, unless we establish a tremendously expensive scheme. Under such a scheme there will have to be large refrigerator rooms and storage facilities. There would have to be an arrangement that every butcher’s shop in South Africa would have to receive its meat from the Board.

I want to return to the hon. member for Simopstown. He said: “The Minister has 1,700 morgen of land in my constituency.” I would have been pleased if that had been the case. Then I could compete with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in establishing townships. I could begin in the South of the Peninsula and he would begin at the other end, and then we could see where we met. Unfortunately, however, it is not my land. It is State-owned land. Decisions are taken in regard to the disposal of State-owned land on the grounds of the need the State has for that land. The Departments to which the hon. member referred have the right to erect buildings on State-owned land. I do not have the right to tell them that they must vacate that land. In their policy which they are implementing, it is obvious that from time to time there will be removals of those buildings. Then the land may perhaps be available for other purposes. Or, as the hon. member said, the land in those areas can be used for the same purpose for Whites. I cannot tell them to-morrow that they must move away. That is obvious. As long as they are rendering a service there and that service cannot be rendered in an alternative place they will have to continue rendering that service there.

I now come to the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member mentioned the question of the Pongola Poort Dam and the Makatini Flats. Of course the House knows what the background to the building of this dam is. As far back as 1962 there was a commission of inquiry into the entire sugar industry and the necessity for future production and marketing possibilities. The entire matter was investigated by the N.R.D.C. They found that, in view of the possible marketing developments, etc., there would be a sugar shortage in South Africa in 1967. As a result of that inquiry and upon the recommendations of the Sugar Association, it was decided that there should be an expansion of the sugar industry. For those reasons preference had to be given to the Pongola Poort Dam, so as to produce sugar in that region. The hon. member can say now that the soil there is not suitable for sugar production. He said that he had been there and that he had issued a warning at that time that the soil was not suitable for sugar production. On the other hand the position has changed considerably in recent times, owing to world circumstances and declining prices overseas. Instead of there now being a shortage of sugar, there is in reality a surplus of sugar in South Africa to-day, as hon. members know. Because there had been a shortage at that time and there is a surplus now, it will be stupid for any Government to go ahead regardless and plant sugar below the Pongola Poort Dam. That is why we are investigating all the products which could possibly be produced there. The hon. member is saying now that nothing will grow there. I have never seen soil so bad that …

I never said that.

The hon. member said that the soil was so poor and so sandy that almost nothing would grow there.

I did not. I never said that at all.

Then the hon. member said something very similar. The hon. member did say that the soil was sandy and alkaline. He asked what could grow there. What else did he say? The Government has now decided to make investigations and to have soil tests made there. Soil samples are now being taken there and various soil analyses are being made there to determine what kind of products may best be grown there and where the best soil in that scheme is to be found. The hon. member referred to a court case. However, the court case had nothing to do with what was being produced in terms of the scheme. The court case dealt with the expropriation of a farm which was alleged to have fallen under the irrigation scheme. All that that court case dealt with was the then current value of that farm. Was the value at that time so much, or was it not? Was that the amount at which the Lands Board and other bodies had valued it, or had it been what the claimant alleged? That is all the case was about. The Government also appointed a commission to go into the entire matter of the Northern Natal area. That land on the other side of the Lebombo Mountains is all State-owned land, except for one farm which has now been expropriated. There was a time when it was planned to develop Sordwana Bay as a harbour. However, those plans have subsequently lapsed. As the hon. member knows, Richard’s Bay is now being developed as a harbour. The result is that the need of an access to the Sordwana Bay complex has to a very large extent disappeared. It is the Government’s attention to make a certain quantity of the water from the Pongola Poort Dam available for Bantu irrigation, and to make a portion available for white irrigators. The Government has not decided where that should be precisely. The hon. member also wanted to know—since it has been decided not at this stage to plant sugar below the Pongola scheme, or even if we were subsequently to plant it there—whether there was any more suitable soil there in the North Natal complex, west of the mountains to which the hon. member referred, for use with the water from the Pongola Poort Dam. We are having investigations made there. We are at present engaged on an investigation in order to determine whether it is practicable to bring that water through the mountains.

Have you not already had a report on that?

No, not yet, we have not yet received a report on that. When the report arrives a decision will be taken with a view to the entire overall planning of the area and taking into consideration how much land must still be made available in Natal for Bantu. The hon. member knows that a great deal of land must still be made available in Natal for Bantu. The greater the amount of State-owned land which it is possible to make available to them, the less private land will have to be purchased and made available. The hon. member is of course aware of that, and it is also what the hon. member has on occasion suggested. This matter is being investigated and planned in its entirety now by the Government before a final decision is taken as to what will happen with the different areas and where the various irrigation schemes will be situated. Had it not been that the entire picture apropos the sugar industry had changed, as I have just stated, then a start might perhaps already have been made with the planting of sugar in those areas. The picture has changed however and we cannot shut our eyes to the altered circumstances. The advice which was received at that time was not only received from Government institutions or bodies. It was that finding of the Government in conjunction with the Sugar Association that there would be a sugar shortage in 1967.We could not wait until 1967 in order to commence planning for the shortage. We had to begin betimes, and in the meantime the circumstances have changed completely. That, in short is the position in regard to the entire question of the Makatini Flats. The hon. member need not be afraid that there is or will not be adequate planning before a final decision is taken in regard to the entire complex of State-owned land. He need not be afraid that ad hoc action will be taken. When a final decision is taken it will be announced in its entirety, together with the accompanying planning.

There are also other aspects which hon. members discussed. The hon. member for Bethlehem spoke about wheat and he said that wheat production should be specially encouraged. Nobody can have any objection to that. The fact of the matter is that in normal times, with a good harvest, a quantity which is just sufficient is produced. On other occasions again, that is not the case. But if encouragement for increased wheat production takes place, then there must also be the opportunity of producing this crop. The hon. member is of course aware that the Government has through research and through the Wheat Board made a tremendous contribution in respect of research in the summer rainfall areas in respect of the cultivation of summer wheat. At one stage we were quite optimistic about combating the fungous diseases and other diseases which wheat is susceptible to, but to-day we are less optimistic in that regard. If one were now to make an analysis of the actual production area of wheat, then one would find that there had been no decrease in production. This fluctuation of the harvest arises more as a result of the fluctuating climatic conditions in the border areas or in regions where a wheat crop is not harvested every year, so that in some years the yield is not all it should have been in that area.

In this regard I want to mention a few figures to the hon. member. The figures are in respect of the harvest years 1964-’65 and 1966-’67 respectively. In the first harvest year the Free State wheat yield was 5 million bags, whereas in the second harvest year it was only 1.2 million bags—a decrease of almost 4 million bags. In the rest of the Republic the yield in 1964-’65 was 2.2 million bags, whereas the yield last year was only 959,000 bags. More specifically it is the climatic conditions which are responsible for the decrease in the harvest. It was more specifically in those regions where we do not have a winter rainfall and where the wheat has to be produced with summer rains or by irrigation. The Government is of course aware of this, and for that reason the Government is also prepared to support the wheat industry so that it does not have to compete with overseas markets. As bon. members know, wheat can at present be imported at a price considerably more than R1 cheaper, including tax. However, it is not only the imported wheat which is going to be used now, and for that reason the price of wheat is being fixed so that we do not have to be dependent upon imported wheat only. The hon. member mentioned that our bread is the cheapest bread in the world. That is quite correct, but the hon. member himself mentioned certain figures, and I would now like to elaborate on them further. A subsidy of R23,000,000 is being paid on bread. This amount represent a subsidy of more than R2 per bag. This amount has decreased considerably because wheat has been imported at a considerably cheaper price, which reduces the subsidy then, with the profit which is made on it, to that extent. We can therefore assume that our bread prices are being subsidized to an amount far greater than R2 per bag in order to maintain the price at that level. Therefore it is not the price which the consumers are now paying as compared to the wheat price which he is now paying. The price is so low because it is being subsidized. However, I am glad that the hon. member broke a lance for the wheat farmer Unfortunately I myself am one, and it happens very often that people only too readily make the accusation that because the Minister is a wheat farmer he will probably look after the wheat farmers better than he will look after the others!

I think that I have now more or less replied to the most important points which hon. members raised here. Other points were also raised, and cognizance is in fact being taken of them. However, I do not think I need to say anything about them.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister’s reply is not what we asked for. Let me take his one and main point first. He says categorically now that if it had not been for the international price of sugar, we would have sugar cane growing all over the Makatini Flats. That is what he says. He said that the drop in price is responsible for us not proceeding with that scheme.

There is surplus production throughout the world.

Well, what does that lead to but a drop in price? It is the same thing, so what is the hon. the Minister grousing about? Now, when did this drop take place? It took place over a year ago. But six weeks ago the Minister told me that the main crop on that irrigation scheme was going to be sugar cane.

Did I tell you that?

Certainly, here is the reply you gave me.

No, you are wrong—I did not tell you that.

Then who told me?

Well, who gave you the reply?

Let me put it this way: It was a Government reply. Does the Minister repudiate his colleague in the Government who gave me that reply? [Interjections.] It was a Government reply, and you are a member of the Government. [Interjections.] I am not going to split hairs about this—I want to know if the Minister repudiates his Cabinet colleague who said that it was going to be mainly sugar cane growing there. He denies that. Now, does he repudiate that Minister?

Carry on.

Now, where do we go from here? This is Cabinet responsibility. We have one Minister giving a reply like that and six weeks later during a debate here the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing comes along and tells me a cock and bull story about the over-production in sugar and the drop in price which took place nearly two years ago now. But his colleague in the Cabinet did not know about this six weeks ago. Where do we stand now? Are hon. members surprised that the leader of the legal team in the court case made the statement he did make, which the Minister does not attempt to reply to.

What did I not do?

You did not attempt to reply to the statement which was made by senior counsel in charge of the legal team. This statement was made by the advocate in charge of the Government case.

But I had nothing to do with that court case.

This has nothing to do with the court case either. It merely happened that that gentleman was in charge of the court care for the Government and he made the statement, apropos of something altogether different, that they had given up the idea of growing sugar cane there and they were thinking of handing it over to the Bantu.

The Minister was not responsible for the barrister’s statement.

What an amazing attitude! The Minister says he is not responsible, but that advocate was talking for the Government. What sort of a Government have we now, where the Minister of Justice presumably instructs counsel who makes a statement, and the Minister of Water Affairs makes a different statement, and the Minister of Lands makes a still different statement? We now have three totally different versions of it.

If you have a lawyer, are you responsible for all his statements?

What will the position be if one is not responsible for what one’s lawyer says on one’s behalf? I think the Minister ought to wake up and realize that he is living in 1967. This was the leader in the legal team in the Government’s case, and he was addressing the Judge-President.

I did not tell him to say that.

I accept that, but I ask what kind of Government is this, where the barrister in charge of the legal team can make that statement and this Minister can repudiate it and another Minister can say something different? Are all these Ministers working in water-tight compartments, completely divorced one from the other and none of them knowing what is happening? The Minister now refers to the land on the west of the mountain, and in reply to an interjection he said that he had not had a report on that yet, and I understood him to say that an investigation is actually taking place at present. The question was asked of the responsible Minister in regard to the land to the west of the mountain, and we were told that the whole area was to receive consideration. That is the area to the west of the mountain as well as to the east.

No, we were talking about the State-owned property to the east. We were discussing whether the water could come to the land on the west.

That is what I am saying. The Minister said that consideration was being given to using the water on the west of the mountain. For the moment it does not matter to whom that land belongs. Presumably, if it is to be used on the west of the mountain, the State will acquire the privately owned land there.

Why?

Did the Minister not say that is what they were going to do?

I said we were investigating whether it was possible to bring the water there. We do not even know yet whether it is possible.

This is the Pongola Scheme which was brought before Parliament five years ago and on which R39 million was to be spent, and now that we are nearing the completion of the dam we only get these little bits and pieces of information about it. Is there anything which shows more clearly that the Government has not a clue as to what it is doing there? [Interjections.] The Minister does not seem to know anything about it. He is leaving it to someone else now to make investigations and surveys and in the meantime R39 million has been committed there.

Do you expect me to make the investigations personally?

No, we hope somebody more sensible than the Minister will be asked to do it. Then we might get some information. But the Minister is responsible for that expenditure and he is answerable to Parliament for it, but now he tries to throw his responsibility off on to all sorts of people instead of standing up here like a man and taking the responsibility himself. He is in trouble now because there was no proper survey carried out before the money was spent, and I am afraid they are now going to do the same to the west of the mountain. They are trying to escape now from the loss they incurred on the east, and now they are trying to see what they can do on the west. But I think the Minister should have taken this opportunty to give us a clear statement in regard to the matter instead of spending his time repudiating his colleagues in the Cabinet.

I do not think the hon. member for South Coast expects me to follow up on the personal discussion he had with the hon. the Minister. I am rising in order to raise a matter in regard to Vote 27. The concepts of market control and market establishment are two matters that give rise to a large number of problems in some of our major cities. Market control in particular gives rise to problems, because owing to historic circumstances market control became the responsibility of local authorities with the result the position nowadays is that local authorities have obtained autonomous powers over our markets. Before the Union of South Africa came into being, the colonial governments controlled markets indirectly. After Union and in terms of the South Africa Act, and more specifically section 85, control over markets was placed in the hands of the Provincial Councils and they, in turn, delegated those powers to the local authorities, which, in turn, in consultation with the Administrators concerned, promulgated such regulations as enabled them to exercise autonomous powers over the control of markets. In practice the effect of this is that, if a consumer or a producer has any complaint, he may only submit it to the local authority which subsequently deals with it in terms of the promulgated regulations. But there autonomous powers of the local authorities also had another effect, namely that in some of our cities Government policy and the interests of the consumers have at times been neglected to a large extent. I want to admit openly that this state of affairs does not apply to all of our major markets, and that there are in fact markets which comply with these things and which are not guilty of this charge. But if I had to mention an example in this regard, it is my unpleasant duty to mention the municipal markets of Port Elizabeth as a market where the policy of the Government and the interests of the consumer to mention the municipal market of Port and the producer are being disregarded. The fact that this market is one of the oldest markets in South Africa, does not make it any easier for me. This market has been in existence since shortly after the arrival of the 1820 Settlers, when the first open market was held in that area. It is interesting to know that in bygone years, the Cape Parliament promulgated regulations, in terms of section 36 of Act 31 of 1860, whereby this market was controlled, and since Union this market has developed to such an extent that as far back as 1948 it reflected a turnover of R800.000, and in 1966 its turnover was R2.800.000. I say that I must mention this market as an example of the policy of the Government and the interests of the consumer, to a large extent, and those of the producer. to a lesser extent, not having been observed properly. I want to prove that by just mentioning a few facts.

In the 145 years during which we have had a market there, it has apparently never dawned upon the city fathers that separation of the races should also be applied in that regard, even if it was only to a small extent and even if it was only for the benefit of the women buyers who attend this market from time to time. This state of affairs has had the result that White persons have to stand in the same queues with non-white consumers, queues in which there is so much jostling and pushing and shouting that one may safely say that, if it had not been for the forbearance of the white consumers, major incidents might already have occurred there in the past. But, what is more, the white consumer and the white producer in the Eastern Cape actually regard this market in Port Elizabeth as the most important market for their produce. They are not prepared to put up with that state of affairs any longer. So we find, for instance, that this matters was raised recently in Die Oosterlig. The person concerned wrote as follows (translation)—

One of the many persons who wrote to me personally about this matter said the following (translation)—

In an editorial in Die Oosterlig of a few months ago, the following thought was expressed (translation)—

There are also other problems at this market, and that is why I said at the beginning that control and market establishment were problematic cases. The facilities for the consumer or the producer to load or offload produce at that market, are inadequate. There is no railway line, and owing to inadequate floor space the necessary hygienic conditions which should actually prevail at such a market, do not prevail there. It was my privilege to keep an eye on this entire matter for a long time. We on this side of the House even offered our assistance to the City Council, and a day or so ago we received a letter from the City Council in which we were informed that it was their intention to build a new market on the Korsten Lake area, part of which has already been reclaimed, and subsequent to that to build a retailers’ market in a white area as well as a similar retailers’ market for non-Whites in a non-white area. In addition the City Council requested us to make the necessary representations to the hon. the Minister and to ask him whether he would not perhaps be prepared to ensure that the recommendations made by the Slater Commission could be carried into effect. Therefore we want to plead very strongly with the Minister that, in view of the fact that these problems may also exist in other major areas, he should kindly render assistance in this regard. As far as Port Elizabeth itself is concerned, we believe that with the acceptance of the report of the Slater Commission and the Minister’s support, we shall perhaps be able to combat these problems now, after 145 years.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 30,—“Deeds Offices, R1,080,000”:

We on this side of the House are very perturbed at the delay that is taking place in setting up the necessary machinery to enable a person to own his or her own flat. Sir, this matter was first raised in the House in 1964 under the Registration of Sectional Titles Bill, when the hon. the Minister of Lands, at the time, accepted the principle and promised to publish a Bill for information. This was duly done and a revised Bill was introduced into the House on the 20th April, 1965. On the 21st April, 1965, before the Second Reading, the Bill was sent to a select committee and on the 7th June, 1965, the chairman of the Select Committee reported that the committee had been unable to finish its work and asked for the committee’s discharge with the recommendation that the committee be reappointed as early as possible in the 1966 session to resume and complete its work. We know that in 1966 there were two short sessions. That is perhaps the reason why the Bill was not proceeded with last year. But in reply to a question put to the hon. the Minister on the 7th February, 1967, asking him when it was his intention to re-introduce the Bill he said that it would be re-introduced next year. This is what he said—

Sir. we perhaps appreciate the hon. the Minister’s problems in this matter, but I do not think the hon. the Minister appreciates the urgency of getting something done to enable members of the public to own their own flats. We have heard from his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, and we all know, that there is a critical shortage of housing in this country. We all know, that land for residential housing particularly, is almost impossible to come by in the larger cities. We know that it costs much less to build a flat than it costs to build a house.

The cost of building a flat is something of the order of two-thirds of the cost of building a house, and we know that if people were able to buy their own flats it would make a major contribution towards solving the problem of the great shortage of housing. Another factor is that the majority of blocks of flats to-day are erected by property developers. The establishment of a block of flats is a long-term investment because all they are able to do is to rent their flats, but if they were able to sell their flats, then the long-term investment would become a short-term one. The initial money invested by the developer in the first project would then be repaid to him and he could go on with the next project. He would then find himself in a position, financially and capital wise, to overtake the backlog in the provision of flats.

Sir, I personally and I am sure other members in this House, have had letter after letter from people asking when we are going to do something about this matter, and I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister to treat this as a matter of urgency. This problem of housing will not be solved until such time as the Deeds Office is in a position to deal with the registration of flats. It would appear from my investigation of the situation that what the Deeds Office will be required to do is not really something that is very difficult. I do not know what the position in the Deeds Office is to-day as far as its normal work is concerned—the hon. the Minister will perhaps tell us—but I think once the initial hurdle is overcome, I do not think that the registration of sectional title is going to create an enormous amount of work. But apart from that there is this old story of priorities. Sir, what is important in this country to-day? I do not have to tell the hon. the Minister; he can have a chat with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Community Development and he will find that one of the most difficult Problems—ideed one is almost inclined to say one of the most insoluble problems—is the question of providing housing. I hope the hon. the Minister will treat this question of the registration of sectional title with the urgency that it deserves in the present context of the situation in South Africa.

I do not want to differ with the hon. member as to the necessity of housing having to be provided as soon as possible, but in view of the tremendous amount of subdivision of land, also for the purposes of community development and other purposes, the Deeds Office has a tremendous amount of work to do. The officials in the Deeds Office are already being overworked. If the legislation the hon. member advocated here has to be placed on the Statute Book, but one will be unable to implemean that one would not be able to implement the Act. One will have an Act on the Statute Book, but one will be unable, to implement it, since it will be physically impossible to do so. That is why, in reply to a question, I told the hon. member some time ago that I had appointed a committee with a view to inquiring into the staff position of the Deeds Office as well as the possibility of introducing legislation of the nature the hon. member advocated here.

Circumstances may perhaps change within the next two or three years. However, at this stage it would appear to me that it is unnecessary to introduce legislation here which simply cannot be implemented, f want to assure the hon. member that hon. members on both sides of this House feel very strongly that a need for legislation of that nature does exist. We shall not delay this matter unnecessarily; we hope to proceed with this Committee and to be able to introduce the necessary legislation as soon as possible, but the trouble is that the officials in the Deeds Office are already being overworked. This legislation will not only apply to new flats, but also to those thousands of existing blocks of flats which can be subdivided so as to grant right of ownership to individual buyers. The hon. member can understand what a tremendous amount of work this will involve. If one introduces legislation of this nature, one should at least be sure that one will be able to dispose of the work within a reasonable length of time.

I do not think the reply by the hon. the Minister is a very satisfactory one. He tells us that he agrees that it is possibly necessary to have legislation of this type but he is not going to introduce it because he has not got the staff to carry it out. I think he must see to it that the Deeds Office has the necessary staff to do this work. You cannot hold up development of this nature merely because you think that you will not be able to get sufficient people to staff the Deeds Office. I want to ask the Minister what the position is with regard to this committee to which he referred. He told us something about this committee last year.

Was it not this year?

No, it was last year on the Minister’s Vote. The committee has been in existence for some time but I understand that it consists only of departmental officials. When I raised this matter with the hon. the Minister before I was under the impression that he was going to invite the profession to play their nart in the work of this committee. I submit that it is essential for the hon. the Minister to get the opinions of the conveyancers and the attorneys and the surveyors and other interested parties. They would probably be able to help him by putting forward suggestions as to how this work can be coped with. I want to ask the Minister now whether he will obtain the views of the professions before he adopts any of this committee’s recommendations, and whether he can tell us when this committee is likely to finish its work because it is becoming a matter of great urgency.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 31,—Surveys, R2,720,000, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 24,—“Posts, Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services, R101,810,000”, and Loan Vote C,—“Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services, R30,800,000”:

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? May I say at the outset how much we regret the fact that the Postmaster-General is unwell, and that we wish him a speedy recovery to resume the onerous duties laid upon him. Sir, it has been the custom in the debate on the Post Office Vote to commence by dealing with post office matters, and then afterwards to deal with matters affecting the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. I do not intend departing from that custom this afternoon, but there is one matter I feel I should mention at this stage in connection with the S.A.B.C. as it might facilitate the debate to-morrow. As you know, Sir, the law lays down that the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation must submit its annual report to the hon. the Minister on the 30th of April and that he subsequently has seven or eight days’ grace in which to Table the report in the House. If the S.A.B.C. has been obeying the law, then the hon. the Minister should at the present moment have its report in his possession. We now find ourselves in this difficult position: This is the one opportunity that we really have of discussing the S.A.B.C. and its problems. Normally the Minister refuses to reply to any questions on the S.A.B.C., and the only way in which we can discuss the S.A.B.C. is by doing it on the basis of the annual report. We are now busy with the Vote; the hon. the Minister has the report of the S.A.B.C., but it has not yet been Tabled. This places the Opposition as well as hon. members opposite in a difficult position. I hope that in future some attempt will be made to get the report of the S.A.B.C. tabled before this Vote comes under discussion and that some attempt will be made to make it available to hon. members before the Vote comes up for discussion. Even if it were to be Tabled to-morrow it would practically still be too late.

Sir, having said that, I want to go on to a consideration of Post Office matters. I begin by saying that I do not think there has been a period in our country’s history where Post Office services have deteriorated to such an extent, within such a short period, as during the past year or 18 months.

That is absolute nonsense.

There has been a demand throughout the country for better and more services and the response has been fewer services and greater delays. We have had this in regard to postal services, in regard to telegraph services and in regard to telephone services, and the time has come for the public, through their representatives in Parliament to express their dissatisfaction at the way in which the hon. the Minister has been handling this problem. When the Post Office Staff Board, or the Post Office Service Association, was established some time ago, we hoped that there would be some improvement in the whole management, in the whole administration of the Post Office, and that some of these unnecessary delays and shortages would have been removed. But what do we find to-day? Let us take the items one by one. As far as telephones are concerned, there has been an entirely unjustified increase in telephone charges. There is an enormous shortage of telephones and there has been a huge increase in the number of complaints made to the Post Office and to the Minister in regard to the sending out of accounts. I saw an example the other day where a large number of telephone accounts were sent out in Cape Town with correct credit balances and these credit balances were shown as debit balances on the next account. These persons’ phones were cut off and they had to pay to have their phones re-installed and at the same time there was no possibility of any compensation being paid to them on account of the rent paid and the loss they suffered through inconvenience. I am not sure about them being asked to pay for reconnection, but this is one instance of many which have been brought to my notice.

How many cases were there?

Ask the hon. the Minister. There was not one but many in this city and in other parts of South Africa as well. The hon. the Minister has had approaches made to him and he has had discussions with representatives of commerce and industry concerning the way in which the telephone position to-day is hampering industry in South Africa. The strange thing is that the hon. the Minister himself admitted, when he met these representatives, the following. He said—

That is an admission which one rarely hears from a Minister. It is actually an admission of incompetence on the part of the hon. the Minister. To indicate our dissatisfaction with the way in which the hon. the Minister has been running his Department. I want to move in regard to the Minister’s salary—

I do not usually quote the S.A.B.C. or its Current Affairs programme as an authority, but here I have a transcript of a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs over the S.A.B.C. in the Current Affairs programme on the 5th December last year. This is what he said and I agree with quite a great deal of what he said, but what he did say is no indication of competence on his part. He said—

These are the Minister’s words and not words of criticism on our part. It came over the S.A.B.C. which he controls. He added—

Why were there the cries of dissent when I said that the services to-day were bad? He added—

—he is correct again, but it is an indictment of his own administration—

There we have the hon. the Minister pinpointing the blame and actually he is pointing the finger at himself and the Government to-day. He went on—-

But he had some sort of solution. That solution he gave over the radio, namely to put up telephone charges and increase the telephone rates. He said that he hoped that with that increase it might be possible to find more capital to improve services in this country. I am very dubious about whether that is going to happen. I am extremely dubious because we have seen very few signs in the past when we were promised that there would be magnificent developments after the Post Office Board was appointed and a greater amount of autonomy was given to the Post Office. There were very few signs. Indeed the shortages became worse and I am very dubious as to whether there is going to be any improvement at all as a result of this increase in the telephone charges. The hon. the Minister’s logic is strange in this regard. He said that for the average household the monthly bill will be very little more if he put up charges by 1 cent. He added that statistics showed that if the average person were to make only one telephone call less a day, this increase in local calls will not cost him a single cent extra per month. Well, I thought he was looking for money but here he is telling housewives to make one phone call less a day and their telephone account will be the same. But he also made another statement which is more than passing strange and about which I should like to tackle him. In his talk over this programme he also said—

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister when, where and how the major representatives of commerce and industry have accepted this increase in telephone charges. I have the statement issued by them here. It is a statement issued jointly by the president of Assocom and the president of the Federated Chamber of Industries. These two presidents stated that—

And yet the Minister tells us that they wholeheartedly accepted it. The Press statement then goes on to set out the reasons why the extra charges were rejected. One has to see this against the problem of the increasing shortage of telephones in the country. I do not think there is a single hon. member in this House who has not had requests for telephones for his constituents. I want to say here in public that we have found the officials most sympathetic—they do their utmost, but if the lines and the exchanges are not there they can do nothing. In 1965, when we thought the real back of telephone shortages in South Africa was broken, there were 11,000 phones short. But then the deterioration of which I talked earlier set in because in 1966. a year later, the shortage had risen to 33.000 and according to the latest figures the shortage is 44,000 —the shortage is increasing at an accelerated rate, progressively, and the position is becoming worse and worse. We all know what the excuse is—that the economy is advancing so fast that the supply of telephones cannot keep pace with it. Well, I admit that there has been an overall increase in regard to the number of telephones supplied—as a matter of fact, in one year I think there was an increase of 5.9 per cent. However, that is not enough. A Post Office department must be able to keep pace with the development of the whole country. Proof that it can be done is given by the statistics of other countries. In England, for instance, there was an increase of 6.6 per cent in one year; in France 6.9 per cent; in Belgium 7.1 per cent; in Holland 7.8 per cent; in Italy 9.3 per cent; in Japan 14.7 per cent; and in the Soviet Union, if the Minister is interested, 10.7 per cent. But in all the countries of the West the increase in the supply of telephones has been commensurate with economic development of the country concerned —it is only in South Africa that we are dragging behind. What makes this increase in rates incomprehensible is the fact that on telephones alone the Government made a profit in the last book year of more than R11 million. We must look at that figure of R11 million. It is a clear profit on telephones, a profit after interest and capital payments of R12 million a year have been deducted. So, after this has been deducted, there still was a profit of more than R11 million. It is a slight decrease on the previous year, I admit, but the same as it was in 1963. How the hon. the Minister can justify this increase I cannot understand. Where one has such an increase, production in South Africa is affected. A telephone is a very important factor of production. It is part of the telecommunication system in this country. If one cannot keep one’s telecommunication system running efficiently production suffers and, obviously, one experiences the type of inflation we are all complaining about. To-day the hon. the Minister is partly responsible for that. He is partly responsible for the rise in the cost of living, because, as he knows, the cost of living index is also calculated on the basis of telephone charges, telegraph charges and all charges of that nature which are taken into account.

When the hon. the Minister made his speech over the radio he tried to paint a better picture of the future. He said: “From the 1st of January, this year, the Post Office Department will stand on its own, financially.” That statement of his has been given headlines throughout the country. At the last the Post Office would now have autonomy, and it would have that autonomy from the 1st of January of this year. Indeed a New Year for the Post Office! I put it to the hon. the Minister across the floor of this House that that statement of his: “From the 1st of January the Post Office Department will stand on its own financially” was not true. The Post Office has not been financially independent from the 1st January. There have been talks about it; there has been a commission appointed under Professor Wie-hahn to go into the finances of the Post Office. This statement of the Minister’s was untrue. So, if any body wants an example of a triple untrue statement by the S.A.B.C., by the Minister and by Current Affairs at the same time, he has one here.

We have heard a lot about future services in this country. Frankly, I am not very impressed when I hear about all the wonderful services that will be coming. I have been in touch with some of the telephone authorities in other countries, and I have been in touch with our own authorities too, to find out what services can be given to the Republic. In South Africa one has a choice of certain telephones. One can choose between a loud bell and a soft bell: one can have a winking light put on one’s phone; one can have an extension jack or two, as well as internal exchanges, wherever one wants them. There are also a few other things which I have here. But if one compares those services to the public with the services provided by the American Telephone and Telegraph Association, the services provided in Western Germany, even the services provided in Britain, one will find that South Africa is far behind those other countries in the provision of services to the general public. In the U.S.A. they look for new subscribers, because it means income and profits. In South Africa the tragedy is that they cannot cope with the applications for telephones. They advertise in other countries for more people to use their telephones. But here we are trying to curb this expansion. I do not want to go into all the facilities the public can have. In the U.S.A. there are special connections, whereby one can have a board meeting with the members of the board sitting thousands of miles from one another. There are special telephones, special dialling systems and special facilities. All these things are given to the American subscribers. Why, even a single city like Durban, the Durban Corporation, which has its own telephone system, makes it possible for ordinary subscribers to choose from a variety of different colour telephones. Is that same choice available to the ordinary subscribers outside the Durban Corporation? I mention the following instance. There is an instrument kown as an automatic dialler. It is an instrument in which one places on record in some way or other, the 20 or 30 most important numbers that one regularly needs. Then one can obtain that number whenever one wishes throughout the country simply by pressing a button. I have gone into that and I have received a letter from the German Government itself, from their postal department, in which they say that that system cannot interfere in any way with the central telephone system. Do hon. members know what happened when I brought this matter to the attention of the Department? I was told: No. this will interfere with the central telephone system. It will interfere with the wiring It will interfere with the controls. Yet, I have it on record from the people who deal with those things in Western Germany, that it cannot interfere in any way whatsoever. Why can we not have these new services? What are we told? We are told that in a few years’ time we are going to have direct dialling to nearly every part of the world. I am not concerned with dialling directly to Tokyo or Timbuctoo. I am concerned with getting through when I dial from, say, Orange Grove to Edenvale, as other hon. members are concerned in getting through to places as near as five or ten miles. I am not concerned with getting New York directly on the line; I am concerned with getting the complaints department of the Telephone Department on the line. [Interjections.]

We have heard about the new South Atlantic Cable Company. This is a development which we commended when it was introduced. I expressed regret that at that time we could not co-operate with all the other countries in the Commonwealth to get this huge column of cable network going right round the world, and become an integral part of that system. That has been denied us. At the moment, however, we have this new under-sea cable, which I believe will definitely facilitate, as hon. members all know, communication with the countries abroad. I am just wondering, and the hon. the Minister must tell me this and give me a reply, would it not have been better to have made use of the communications-satellite system? We must remember that we are founder members of Comsat. We paid for shares and I take it that we will receive some of the profits up to the present, too. According to this Comsat system, one can have hundreds, in some cases thousands, of direct telephone conversations with any part of the world. One can have that and, by the way, one can use it for television too. [Interjections.] Last year representatives of Comsat came out to South Africa to have discussions with the hon. the Minister to tell him that they could put a satellite for us in orbit at the cost of R12 million and that satellite would be South Africa’s satellite only, which we could use for telephone communication with any part of the world. It was proved that the cost would actually have been much less than the R50 million that the South African Atlantic Cable Company is going to spend. The hon. the Minister might say that one can interfere electronically with those satellites. I do not know; I am not a physicist or a technician, but I know that cables can be cut and there can be interferences with that kind of communication too. We are concerned about that and we do say that, although we agree with this system of getting direct dialling and direct control with countries outside of South Africa going as soon as possible, we still want to see services in this country improved first of all.

I intended saying—my time is limited-something about staff matters before I sat down. Let me repeat that the Post Office workers are the lowest paid of all. They suffer the same living costs as all other people in the public service and the workers outside. They have very few. if any at all, of the perquisites which people in other parts of the Public Service have. The Railwaymen get free tickets and free uniforms; they pay the same telephone rental as you or I have to pay. I am not complaining about public service perquisites—I believe it is justified— public servants are, in regard to their own Department’s charges, given special facilities. Do you know, Sir, that 75 per cent of our post office workers cannot enjoy a five-day week at present? By law they are entitled to it, but they simply do not work a five-day week, owing to staff shortages, owing to pressure of work on Saturdays. There have been complaints by the postal staff associations that that pressure of work is partly caused by their colleagues in the public service doing much of their business with the post office on a Saturday. What I do regard as the worst in regard to the position of the post office worker at the present moment is the fact that the Minister has not made any serious or successful attempt to adjust overtime rates in the post office to the increase announced in January of last year. It has caused the anomalous position— and I have letters here to prove it—that in certain cases to-day post office employees are paid less per hour for overtime than their ordinary wage or salary rate per hour. There are such cases. They are not the majority of cases, but one can imagine what that means. It means that a man working a 44-hour week and working four or five hours so-called overtime works the overtime at a remuneration less than his ordinary hourly wage. It means, Sir, that he is not working a 44-hour week but a 50-hour week or even a 54-hour week to-day in the post office for the same pay as he received in the past. It is in fact the end of the 40-hour and the 44-hour week in the South African post office.

I protest, too, because the Minister is not taking effective steps on behalf of the thousands and thousands of uniformed men in his department who certainly were shocked to hear a couple of weeks ago that now they will have to pay income tax on the value of their uniforms. I raised this matter under the Finance Vote with the hon. the Minister of Finance, but I know that representations have been made to the Minister and I want to know what he has done for his own post office workers in this regard, because. Sir, after all. he has a duty towards them too: He must see to their interests. I think I know what happened. How did the Commissioner for Inland Revenue get to know of this fact that the post office workers were not paving income tax on their uniforms? Where did he get the idea from? He got it from the Minister himself who reported his own workers *o the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. It was done, as was admitted by the hon. the Minister of Finance, by the financial statements which were sent up to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue, who, when going through these—and I think he was wrong in this— discovered that the post office workers should pay income tax on their uniforms. I regard this as an entirely unjustified thing to have done.

There are hon. members who will speak after me, but I do think that I have shown the staff of the post office to be not only dissatisfied but also more dissatisfied than the staff of any other government department. That cannot be denied. The services are not only inadequate but they are more inadequate in the post office than ever before in any other government department. The shortages are great, and not only great but greater than in any other department. And the hon. the Minister is not only incompetent but more incompetent than any other Minister in the Cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that the rules of this House do not make provision for a short adjournment to clear the air after someone has spoken so much nonsense for half an hour as the hon. member has just done. Indeed, I have never before in this House heard so much nonsense being spoken in half an hour as I have just heard during the past half an hour. The hon. member for Orange Grove has altogether lost his perspective now. The hon. member has now shown us that a certain obsession in regard to our posts, telegraphs and radio services has taken hold of him over the past number of years. That reminds me of the man with the mule. The mule kicked his mother-in-law to death and that led to a large funeral. During the funeral the clergyman made the remark, “But my brother your mother-in-law must have been very popular for just look at all the people from all the districts who have turned up for the funeral”. His reply was, “No, reverend—they have come to buy the mule!” The hon. member for Orange Grove always sees a matter from the wrong angle. Let me now point out a few of his absurd statements. The hon. member spoke of the allegedly poor service and his complaint was that a certain person received an incorrect telephone account. He turned that molehill into a mountain. Why does the hon. member not tell us how many incorrect telephone accounts have been forwarded? Perhaps he only knows of one incorrect account which has been forwarded and now he is kicking up a row about that in this Committee. Does the hon. member not know that the Post Office is one of the most extensive organizations in South Africa? I am surprised that there are not many more, hundreds more, errors of that kind. The hon. member will not be able to name a single business organization in this country which has expanded as tremendously as the Post Office and which has not made a single error in a year’s time.

Eight million postal articles could not be delivered last year.

Consequently I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the officials of his Department on the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove was able to refer to only one error concerning a telephone account.

Just consider what the hon. member said. He said that the telephone service in South Africa had deteriorated to a large extent, and in the next breath he said telephones were not available. But it is precisely because the service has expanded so much that telephones are not available. If the service had indeed deteriorated, if it had become unpopular, people would surely not have asked for telephones. It is precisely because the service is so cheap and so efficient that the service has expanded to such an extent that there is a shortage of telephones at present. [Interjections.] Of course. People who had no telephone before now have telephones, and businesses which had only one or two telephones before now have ten or 20 or 30 telephones. [Interjections.] In addition there is a very large variety. People may choose how many they want, how many extensions they desire, and they may even choose what colours they want, as the hon. member indicated. That then is the service which ostensibly had deteriorated to such an extent! But the extent to which the post office service has become popular is illustrated by the large number of people who flood it with applications for telephones to such an extent that it cannot keep up in supplying the demand. Does the hon. member know that of the 2.4 million telephones in the whole of Africa more than 50 per cent is in South Africa? Countries which are reasonably well-developed, such as Egypt, are included in these figures. Does the hon. member know that for every 100 persons—Black and White —in South Africa there are 6.4 telephones whereas the corresponding figure for a country such as Ghana is only .1 per cent? And that is a so-called developed country.

I say this House indeed owes this hon. Minister and the staff of the Post Office a debt of gratitude for the excellent services they are rendering to South Africa.

The hon. member also said that the staff was so very dissatisfied. I do not know of such dissatisfied staff. I only know that the Post Office staff is indeed rendering outstanding services for which South Africa thanks that staff. As far as I know, they are satisfied under the circumstances. Of course they make sacrifices, as many other people in the Public Service and elsewhere do, but I do not know of the dissatisfaction of which the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke. Indeed, let me now mention two cases of really first-class Post Office service. I posted a letter here in Cape Town on a Tuesday afternoon and that letter arrived in Otjiwarongo on the Thursday of the same week. There was no aircraft to Windhoek on that Tuesday, nor on the Wednesday or Thursday. I made inquiries at the Post Office how that delivery was humanly possible, and the only thing I could find out was that the letter was taken to Johannesburg by aircraft, then to Windhoek and from there to Otjiwarongo. It appeared to be a physical impossibility but it was in fact done.

But I want to mention another example of outstanding service. Occasionally I post a film, which I have taken over the weekend, on a Monday and on Thursday morning it is back in Cape Town after it has been developed in Johannesburg. I ask the question: How is that possible? I post it here on a Monday, it has to be delivered in Johannesburg, it takes one day to develop the film, it has to be posted back here, it has to be delivered here, but on Thursday it arrives. I say the Post Office in South Africa is rendering a first-class service which cannot be equalled by the postal service in any country in the world. Consequently I get annoyed and angry if hon. members such as the hon. member for Orange Grove rid themselves in this House of such nonsense as he rid himself of to-day. The hon. member has developed an obsession and he is certainly doing this country no service by turning molehills into mountains. I think the hon. member will render the country and the Post Office staff a greater service if he rather mentions the excellent services they are rendering.

Before I came to this House I often wondered what was the purpose of a Whip. To-night I have been able to see what it is. It is to “whip up” some enthusiasm on his own side, because there was little else in what the hon. member for Middelland had to say that was constructive, other than to “whip up” enthusiasm for what is a thoroughly bad service. The hon. member does not seem to know that a telephone, like a motor-car today, is not a luxury but a necessity. Surely in the leading country in Africa one is entitled to a better telephone service than we are getting to-day. I am surprised at the hon. member for Middelland comparing South Africa with a country like Ghana and the service given there. An awful lot of attention seems to be paid to the black states of Africa these days by members of the Government! But I should like to deal, in the first place, as did the hon. member for Orange Grove, with the courtesy and the efficiency of the postal officials in so far as the public is concerned. I have much to do with postal officials in the Peninsula and I have met with unfailing efficiency and courtesy on their part. But they work under impossible conditions of service due mainly to shortage of staff. They also work under all sorts of frustrations. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is correct that the Department has abolished the Grade 4 postmaster. If that grade has been abolished, is the Minister aware of the result of that abolition? If it is correct that it has been abolished, it means that no fewer than 3,000 clerical workers in the post office, although on different salary scales, are at the end of the year competing for something like 300 Grade 3 postmaster ships. The ordinary low-salaried clerical worker in the Post Office and the man who was a postmaster Grade 4, if my information is correct, are now competing for the same promotion to Grade 3, and there are only 300 Grade 3 postmaster ships in South Africa. Mr. Chairman, either there are not enough Grade 3 posts and more should be created, or else the Grade 4 post-masterships should be restored.

Then I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a second question, and that is on what basis bonus and salary awards for achievement are made; by whom they are made and how it is done, in other words on what basis is the award system carried out?

Now I should like to deal with the telephone services. Here again, like the hon. member for Orange Grove, I have experienced courtesy and helpfulness at all levels of the telephone service when we have had to go to those officials with complaints from our constituents, but they are simply unable to cope with all the requests for service. There has been an inability in the Telephone Department to plan for the terrific expansion that has been taking place in South Africa, and they are unable to provide a good enough telephone service. Let me refer briefly to the telephone directory as an example of inadequate service. On page 5, under the heading of “Faults”, the number to ring is 4191 in the Peninsula, but if after 12 o’clock on a Saturday 4191 is dialled and is advised that for some reason or other one cannot get through to a telephone number in the Peninsula, the defective service cannot be restored, except in exceptional circumstances, until the following Monday. I do not believe that is adequate service to the public. Surely if a telephone goes out of order because of a technical fault, it should be able to be restored before the end of the week-end. Not only that, but there is the question of disconnections and re-connections. I had a case the other day where a doctor came to see me on Monday, the 17th. When I arrived back from Parliament there he was on my doorstep. He had a surgery from 5 to 7 p.m., and his telephone had been disconnected both at his surgery and at his home that afternoon at 3.30 p.m. I managed to get through to the Superintendent, who within two hours restored his home telephone and his surgery telephone. On examining his account it was found that it had typed on it, 13th April, the date on which apparently it was sent out. He received it only two days before the disconnection on the Monday. Whether he had paid his account or not, surely a doctor’s case should be treated as an exceptional case because he serves humanity. Surely both his surgery and home numbers should not have been cut off simultaneously but that is the sort of thing that happens. As to the actual telephone itself, the instrument, if other members have the same experience as I have, there are not only constant interruptions while one is speaking, but there is a buzzing noise and all sorts of echoes that come through, which make conversations quite indistinct at times. There are cross-conversations and often, in the last few weeks particularly, when one dials the first digit or even the first two digits of a number, one gets the dialling tone repeating itself. It is not only I who have had this experience. It may even happen to hon. members opposite, and it certainly happens to the public. Mr. Chairman, if there is one aspect of the Government service with which the public is thoroughly disillusioned at the moment, it is the telephone services provided by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

As an ex-post office official I always find it pleasant to listen to this debate. I should like to give you a little glimpse into the interior of a post office and I just want to take you to the circulation section. There are probably few hon. members who realize how many people handle a letter from the time it is posted to the time it is delivered, but I just want to draw your attention to one official who handles the letter during this process. If enough postal articles are posted regularly, say between Groot Drink near Upington and Twee Dronk near Standerton, then a regular direct mailbag between the two points is made up, and when that mailbag reaches its destination, it is opened by a postal official. That person has a particular appelation in the language of the post office staff: He is known as a pickpocket. When I listen to the Opposition I realize that their political mail-bag is very empty and that it no longer requires a regular service. I pity the political pickpocket on their side who has to open that empty bag each time, because there is practically nothing in it for him to take out.

It is very clear to me that the hon. member for Orange Grove, who in this case is the head pickpocket, and his deputy, are presenting an entirely distorted image of the hon. the Minister to the public and also to the staff who deal with Post Office matters. In my opinion they are deliberately creating a distorted image of the hon. the Minister because they have no other way of getting at him. Since the Post Office is in contact with each member of the public almost every day, I can tell you that they are very fortunate to have in the hon. the Minister a person who is the very paragon of courtesy, politeness, ability and efficiency. To the staff the hon. the Minister is an example worthy of being emulated. To the Post Office officials there is nothing better than to know that the head of their Department, their Minister is a person to whom one can look up. It creates confidence in them; it creates in them a desire to do their work to the best of their ability. The post office officials know that they are in safe hands and that they have nothing to fear in spite of all the hollow accusations which we have heard in this House from the side of the Opposition. Hon. members of the Opposition must not forget that if they accuse the hon. the Minister then they are indirectly accusing his staff. The efficiency of the Department does not depend upon the Minister only but upon each member of his staff.

You are now blaming the staff for the poor conditions.

When hon. members of the Opposition praise the Post Office staff, then the staff must take that praise with a pinch of salt. Hon. members of the Opposition are accusing the hon. the Minister of there being no planning in the Post Office, particularly in view of the telephone shortage. I do not want to go into the telephone shortage as such, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to give you an idea of what happens behind the scenes there in regard to the supplying of telephone services. Long before a township is proclaimed—in fact at the time when a local authority is considering application to establish a township—the Post Office receives copies of the minutes of the municipality and from those the Post Office establishes that there is going to be an expansion in a certain area. If a town council approves the establishment of new townships, then the plan, and if they have no fault to find with such a township extension, then the extension department of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is notified. They know long before any other bodies do that there is going to be an extension. It is not even necessary for the promoters of such a township area to notify the telephone department of the proposed extension because they already know about it. If a building is going to be demolished then the extension department of the Post Office knows about it. When Post Office officials riding in a bus see that a building is going to be demolished then the extension department is informed. Long before the services are necessary therefore they are aware of it. They plan even as far as 10 to 17 years ahead. The tragedy is that no private body, no promoter, no building contractor, notifies the Post Office telephone department of the Post Office in time of the extensions which they are envisaging, but as soon as the building has been erected then they suddenly want telephones.

When a township area is being planned, applications have to be made for the supplying of water and power, but when it comes to telephones then they do not take the telephone department into account at all. Is it not time that the founders of townships and business entrepreneurs informed the Department of Posts and Telegraphs betimes in regard to the requirements in five or six years’ time? The extension in the telephone department is dependent upon estimates, and if a township area is approved this year, then it may be established next year, but the telephone department will not have been able to make estimates for it in time, and even if the telephone department has estimated for it, in the expectation that the township area will be established during the following year, then the promoters might decide during that year that it is not the appropriate time and that they are only going to start building in five years’ time. In other words, the telephone department cannot lay cables and extend exchanges in advance. Mr. Chairman, what the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is doing, particularly the telephone extension department, is really commendable. We who do not come into contact with it every day, do not know how much initiative is being displayed there in order to ascertain the needs of the community; we do not know how they are doing. I want to ask the Press to encourage private bodies to take the telephone department of the Post Office into their confidence far more often in future, so that the Post Office can make timely provision for the necessary expansions in its estimates.

I think this is perhaps an opportune moment for me to reply to one specific point of attack. We know the pattern which me hon. member for Orange Grove follows. It takes practically the same form every year, this year a little pepper, salt, herbs and chilli have been added, and there is a reason for that. The reason is that the day after tomorrow is Wednesday, and Wednesday has a special significance for that hon. member. He thinks that by acting in the way he has done here again to-day he can help to influence the votes of the Post Office staff in the Johannesburg (West) constituency. I do not think the hon. member knows the Post Office people at all. They saw him and that side of the House in their true colours years ago. They have never found in them the champions of the poor man and the little man. No, they have found in them the champions of the rich man and the capitalist, the big man. To-day the same motive is lurking behind the actions of that hon. member. Let me explain it to you. One must analyse his behaviour well to see what he wants to achieve by it. He made two attacks on my Department and upon me, which dealt chiefly with the Post Office worker. Let me mention the first one. His first attack was that the Post Office worker receives a uniform and that income tax had to be paid on it every year. Just as he did in the case of the vote of the hon. the Minister of Finance he did it again to-day, because he thought that if he could emphasize it, to-day being Monday, and if the people could accept him as their champion, then it might have an effect on Wednesday’s election. I do not think the Post Office people can be caught out so easily. The Post Office people have seen through him long ago.

Let me just explain the position to the hon. members and the Post Office people. Every person in South Africa above a certain income group pays income tax. That is the law of the land. Income tax is one of the fairest forms of taxation because one pays according to one’s ability. A Post Office official, such as a postman for example, with an income of R2,400 per year, who has two children, pays R46 in income tax each year. A man who gets ten times as much, for example the director of a mine or the director of a large company, who perhaps earns R24,000 per year, does not pay ten times as much. He does not pay R460. He always pays proportionately more and more as his income increases. At R24,000 he pays approximately R8,208 per year, if he has two children. In this calculation of a person’s income every source of income is included. In the case of a post office official the uniform he receives is included. The suit of clothes is calculated at R24 per year, and he must pay income tax on that. But the rich director of mining companies receiving the large salary also receives additional allowances.

He does not receive a suit of clothing; he receives a luxury motor car or a luxury house in which he lives for nothing. That is general. The hon. member for Kensington need not pretend that it is not so. It is so, and he knows it. The result is that the annual value of that motor car and house which he receives is included in his income. It increased the income of that man who is already earning a lot, so that when we reach those high categories, the additional income tax he has to pay amounts to a considerable total. It is pernaps a R1,000 or R2,000 extra per year. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove said: “Is that not terrible? Is it not terrible that the postman should pay income tax on the uniform he receives?”

The Post Office Staff Association said that.

Yes, probably as a result of your encouragement. Has the hon. member ever worked out what that post office official has to pay? Do you know what that post office official, who has two children has to pay per year for income tax? He must pay 18c extra on his uniform, i.e. He per month. Now the hon. member is coming forward as the great champion for the 1½c which that official has to pay. But behind it all there is a great deal more than the He of the officials. There is a great deal more behind it all. The hon. member knows only too well that we cannot, as the Act stands at present, make an exception for this man or that. The Act must be applied. It is not possible to make any exceptions. But what is his plea now? His plea is: If we can abolish it as far as the poor man is concerned, then we have dealt a blow for abolishing it as far as the rich man is concerned too. That is the motive behind it all. [Interjections.] The hon. member knows that he wants the principle changed, because if he is able to have the princible changed, he has won thousands and thousands of rand every year for his friends.

What is so pathetic about this entire matter is that the poor Post Office is always being exploited by the other side of the House, and that hon. member. It is being exploited so that he may achieve his aims of benefiting the rich man. Do you know what the results of that are? Just for the sake of interest let me remind you of this. If the result should be that he succeeds in getting what he wants, namely that those extras which are being earned by the rich directors should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of income tax, then that tax which they are now paying will have to be borne by the country as a whole. That poor post office worker will have to be taxed even more heavily. That is the game they want to play and then they still laugh about it. May I just remind you in conclusion that it is not only the post office official who pays that income tax. There are many officials who are paying it. There are the officials of the city councils, the officials of the Department of Public Works, railway officials and the Transvaal Hospital Uniform Staff. All are paying income tax. Why is he so suddenly concerned now about the Post Office officials. There are other officials who are much worse off. There are officials who receive uniforms, but who do not pay a mere He per month in income tax on it. They must bear the entire cost of that uniform themselves. In the Defence Administration one receives one’s first uniform free, but after that it must be replaced at one’s own expense. The same applies in the case of Prisons and Police. They are much worse off than the Post Office officials. Why did the hon. member not have pity on those officials? Why did he not raise that point? He confined himself to the Post Office because it is under discussion here. It is by chance that it is under discussion shortly before the election. The Post Office officials saw that side of the House in their true colours long ago. When I was still studying Latin I came across one sentence in Virgil which I shall never forget, i.e. “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes” (I fear the Greeks particularly when they bear gifts). Virgil probably saw far into the future and when he said “Danaos” he probably meant the United Party.

The hon. member for Orange Grove certainly seems to have got under the hon. the Minister’s skin this afternoon. I really have never seen him so cross or so annoyed, nor have I seen him move into realms of finance and income tax, which I think he would have been better advised to have left alone. To say that what the hon. member for Orange Grove was trying to do was to rob the poor to pay the rich—that is what he said in effect—is I think the most absurd statement on income tax that has ever been made in this House. What happens, Sir? It is true that uniforms can be taxed as part of a person’s income, but this has to do with the law and the interpretation of the law. But there are many free uniforms which if used in the course of one’s work are not taxable, nor if an allowance given. It is a question of law and interpretation of the law. The Minister started to talk about houses and motorcars for rich company directors. But what is the position? Where a director of a company uses a car for the business the use of that car is not taxable. If, however, he uses that car for his personal use, then he is taxed. So, for instance, if a director uses that car to go to a cinema or to the races the value of such use is subject to taxation. You see, Sir, this is not analagous at all. Similarly, if a director is given a house free for his personal use he must pay tax on the rental value. It has nothing to with his business. But when he entertains in that house for his business that expenditure is tax-free. I would rather that the hon. the Minister leave these matters to the Minister of Finance.

I want to talk about one or two things which are of more importance. There is, first of all, the question of postal services and trunk calls. This is a matter which I have raised with the Minister previously. The position is that the trunk call service between Johannesburg and Cape Town is on certain days almost impossible. The position is so bad that I have had telegrams from people in Johannesburg asking me please to phone them because they cannot get through.

You made the same speech last year.

The hon. member for Brakpan, who made that interjection, seems to work in a peculiar manner—he says after you have raised a matter once and nothing is done about it you must leave it there. But I advise the hon. member to listen to what I am going to say. It can do him a lot of good. I have asked the Minister for details of the number of calls between Johannesburg and Cape Town. Between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. there are 116 calls, on an average day, between Cape Town and Johannesburg, between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. 1,230 calls, and between 6 p.m. and 12 midnight 374. A point to remember is that many calls made during the business hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. are not business calls. The point I want to make to the Minister is that there is no inducement to people to put personal calls through at other hours. They save nothing by doing that. If they want to save anything they have to put their calls through between 12 midnight and 6 a.m. but this is not a convenient period. What I want to ask the Minister is to extend this period during which these calls can be made at a reduced rate. He should extend the hours up to 8 a.m. instead of 6 a.m. and from 10.00 p.m. instead of midnight as at present. Let him do that and see whether he cannot divert some of the pressure on the period between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. thereby making it easier for telephone calls to be made during the business hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. People will change their habits if these calls are made cheaper for them. This is a practice which is followed throughout the world. I did raise the matter with the Minister before when he told me about his problem with staff. But what I am pleading for is also for the good of the Department itself because if what I suggest is put into practice the load will be more evenly spread.

The other matter I should like to raise relates to the clearance of parcels. Here I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what the policy of his Department is in regard to the clearance of parcels through post offices in so far as customs duties are concerned. I can only speak of the Johannesburg Post Office, because that is the only post office I have had experiences of in regard to this matter. At any rate, one of two things usually happens: The parcel is forwarded to your nearest local post office and all you have to do is to go there, pay the duties due and within a matter of minutes you have your parcel and you can go home. In other words, the service in this respect is excellent. On other occasions, however, parcels are cleared through the main Post Office and then Heaven help you. In the course of one week I went down to the main Post Office personally twice to clear the same parcel. After waiting for nearly three-quarters of an hour in a queue on the first occasion I did not have time to wait any longer. So I left the queue and went home. Two days later I returned. I joined the queue and waited for well over half an hour and being nowhere near the front I returned home and eventually phoned up a clearing agent and asked him to clear the parcel for me. It is understandable that there are difficulties. People who receive gifts from overseas, for example, do not receive documents or invoices beforehand and are, consequently, unable to establish the value of the goods immediately. So you get a dear old lady going to the Post Office to clear a gift sent to her from a friend overseas. She goes to the counter without knowing what is in the parcel. She may be asked to open it and when she does open it she might not be sure what it contains because she may never have seen anything like that before. So she and the Post Office official have a little chat in trying to decide what it is, under what category it falls and what the applicable rate of duty is. Sometimes the parcel cannot be cleared without information. This is, of course, the way in which customs work. But the problem is that you have one customer spending a considerable period of time at the counter before one parcel can be cleared.

Whose fault is that? Is it the Minister’s?

No, it is not the Minister’s fault. However, I say that when the Post Office makes statements it should stick to such statements. What did the Postmaster-General say in his report? He says, “Our objective has however always been service rather than profits”. Let us then get some service and stop making profits. What is the answer? It may be one of many. You see, Sir, the hon. member for Brakpan is satisfied just to let things happen without making an effort to put them right if wrong. He does not want to do anything about these things—he is satisfied to let them go on in the same old inefficient way. I have said that there are a number of ways in which the methods can be improved. Obviously, more staff will be required. This is a problem I appreciate. Then, perhaps, counters can be divided so that those people in possession of the necessary documents need not stand in queues for an interminable time together with those who do not have documents. But this is matters for the experts of the Post Office to investigate. If the hon. member for Brakpan, or the Minister, should like to make use of my services for such an investigation I will be very happy to offer them and to submit a report. I can assure the hon. the Minister that it will be a good report and that things will then happen. But unfortunately that is not my job. I am paid for being in this House and not for investigating the Post Office. The position is serious and I hope something will be done.

Then there is the question of services over week-ends, a question which I have raised before. But I will go on raising it until we can get satisfaction. In this connection I should like to know from the Minister, or perhaps from the hon. member for Brakpan who is assisting the Minister so ineffectually, what one must do on a Saturday afternoon or on a Sunday if one wants to post a letter while having no stamps?

What a stupid question. In that case all you have to do is not to post the letter.

It is annoying that when on occasions over a week-end you urgently have to send a letter you have nowhere to go to buy a stamp. In many other countries in the world you can in such an event buy stamps at many places and pay a surcharge. The hon. the Minister told me two years ago that-he was going to provide vending machines for stamps at post offices in South Africa. Have they been provided yet? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when I left home this morning my son told me that Wilkie’s Circus was in town and that he would like to go there to-night. Now that I have listened to hon. members on that side, I am sorry that I did not rather bring him to the House of Assembly to listen to the Opposition, for I would at least have saved a few cents.

Right at the outset I want to repeat what I said some weeks ago, namely that in this House we are dealing with an Opposition which is not worthy of the House. I told you that as a good democrat I should like to see an opposition party in this House which is worthy of the House. Now I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I want to amend that statement of mine slightly.

Order! On what Vote is the hon. member speaking now?

I am speaking on the Posts Vote, Sir. In respect of the Posts Vote I want to amend that statement of mine, and I want to tell you that this afternoon the hon. members of the Opposition levelled criticism against the hon. the Minister and his Department which is actually very poor. Therefore I believe that when we are dealing with a Government such as this, which controls the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and also other Government Departments in such an excellent fashion, it is a difficult, an impossible task, to criticize such a Government effectively.

Now that Posts and Telegraphs are under discussion, I want to concede that when one deals with an organization as extensive as our Department of Posts and Telegraphs; when one deals with a Department which employs approximately 46,000 persons; when one deals with an organization which receives additional capital to the value of R25 million every year; when one deals with an institution of which the estimates of expenditure amount to approximately R22 million, one should be prepared to accept that lapses may occur here and there. I therefore believe—and here I associate myself with what the hon. member for Middelland said—that it is in fact a compliment to the hon. the Minister that the criticism of the Opposition on this great organization is so innocuous and petty. There has been petty criticism on stamps and on telephones which “buzz”, etc. Consequently this side of the House cannot but compliment the Minister in all sincerity. In all fairness one has to accept that when we deal with an organization as large as our Department of Posts errors will naturally slip in here and there. That goes without saying. Where on earth will one find an organization as extensive as this which does not make mistakes sometimes? Notwithstanding the arguments and frivolous criticism that we heard this afternoon from that side of the House, nobody in the House can dispute the fact that under this Government the Post Office has made tremendous progress in the past number of years. I should like to demonstrate this briefly.

In the year 1963-’64 the Government voted an amount of R20 million to the Department of Posts for capital works. The following year the amount was R24 million, and the year after it was R25 million. Over a period of ten years the Government voted more capital every year. That means that over a period of ten years an amount of R202 million was invested in posts. Let us compare this amount with what that side of the House did for the Department of Posts when they governed this country. In the period 1945 to 1948 they did not vote R20 million or R25 million for that Department. In the first year after 1945 the then Government voted R4 million, in the following year R5 million, and in the year after Rll million. In ten years of United Party Government an amount of R40 million was invested in posts for capital extensions, etc. Compare that with the amount the National Party has spent in respect of the capital expansion of posts in South Africa in the past ten years, namely the phenomenal amount of R202 million. I think it compares very well, not so? But let us look somewhat further. If we consider what has been spent in the past year on automation and on the expansion of our telecommunications system, we find that an amount of more than R24 million was spent. That means an increase of 8 per cent on the previous year. If we bear in mind that our country’s normal development rate is 5½ per cent, it is certainly ridiculous to allege that our posts are collapsing, as the hon. member for Orange Grove alleged. For not only has posts kept abreast of normal developments; they have even spent more on development.

Hon. members on that side of the House, and in particular the hon. member for Orange Grove, criticized the telephone services in South Africa, but now I want to make a brief analysis of their criticism. But before doing so, I should like to quote some figures and statistics to show what the position was in respect of telephone services when that side governed the country. In the year 1948, when that side was still in power, there were altogether 318,581 telephones in South Africa. According to the latest figures available to me, there were no fewer than 1,119,878 in South Africa in 1966—i.e., a year ago. Now I find it most enlightening to see what a shortage of telephones there was in 1948. In 1948, when the United Party was still in government, there was a shortage—and to me this is important —of 73,000 telephones in South Africa. Taken as a percentage the shortage was almost 20 per cent. It is also interesting to notice that on 31st March, 1966, there was a shortage of a mere 33,000 telephones in South Africa.

When I refer to this, I see hon. members on that side hang their heads in shame. In 1948 there were 27,374 farm lines. What was the position under this Government’s regime a year ago? There were 91,939 farm lines. In 1948 the distance in farm lines, in round figures, was 65,000 miles, while last year it was 204,092 miles.

In 1948 the total number of telephone calls was 458 million, as against 1,466,000 million a year ago. [Time expired.]

Sir, I have had the misfortune of listening to three speeches by this hon. member in this House and on each occasion they have been nothing but political diatribes. We have had nothing constructive from this hon. member. I think that with that I should leave the hon. member. However, Sir, the hon. member said that the Government has over the past ten years spent the phenomenal amount of R202 million in capital for the provision of telephones and postal services in South Africa. I agree that this figure is indeed phenomenal—because the services are still inadequate. And that is the point. What has happened to this R202 million? Where has it been spent? With all this phenomenal expenditure, the services are still inefficient, as was said by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member for Orange Grove was picked out by the hon. member for Middelland for referring to but one incorrect telephone account. I want to ask hon. members here: Have none of you ever had an incorrect telephone account?

No!

Well, I am surprised to hear it. In my home it is a common occurrence.

I should like to refer to a specific occurrence last year. During the general election we had telephones installed specifically for election purposes. One telephone, in regard to which I received no further account, lay in the premises—a disused sports pavilion—for over six weeks before it was removed. Another one, about three miles away, lay in unoccupied shop premises for over two months before it was removed. In respect of another telephone —and I have a file of correspondence here— we received no communications from the department at all for six months, but at the end of September we suddenly received an account for rent for six months for this telephone. When we enquired about it, the instrument was still lying where it had been installed. These three telephones were applied for with the express instructions that they were to be installed on the 28th March and removed on the 31st March. All the others were removed, but those three were left. What was the reply I received from the Divisional Controller of Posts and Telegraphs when I enquired about telephone services in that area and the shortage thereof? He wrote: “We are being held back by a shortage of instruments.”! There were three instruments lying idle which they could have removed but which they did not take away. Therefore, Sir, it is no use that side of the House talking about efficiency in that department; I reject it categorically.

Tell me, is this your great attack in depth?

The hon. the Minister need not worry about this depth—we have some more depths to come yet. This one is going this way at the moment. Sir, it took until 16th February, 1967, to settle this account.

I want this afternoon to discuss with the Minister a matter that I raised last year. I raised then the question of the provision of public telephone services for Bantu people in Bantu areas, and more specifically in Hammarsdale. The Minister did me the favour of a very courteous reply in writing, and I agree with his reply that public telephones which are provided for the Bantu people are frequently damaged: that the coin boxes are stolen; that little can be done to stop this vandalism; that the department is doing the best it can more often than not—although I am sure that there are occasions when they must lose heart and, at the same time, get a bit “steeks” and just leave these public call boxes unrepaired. I made further inquiries and found that these conditions apply throughout the country in all the Bantu areas. Because of this we find that the decent, law-abiding Bantu majority are forced to suffer on account of the lawless minority which cannot be controlled. It is this minority who damage the instruments. I know that the department’s policy is that public elephones shall be installed in public places and be accessible at all times, and I accept the reasons therefor. But I want to make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister this afternoon—that public telephones should be installed inside post offices, public offices, stores, restaurants, tearooms, eating houses, in fact in any premises which have a public space. All these buildings that I have just mentioned have public spaces inside them, and my suggestion to the Minister is that he install public telephones within those buildings to prevent the vandalism which takes place, not during the hours of daylight, not during business hours, but at night. It will mean that the law-abiding Bantu will at least have some service. I concede that it will be curtailed by the hours during which these premises are open, but at least that limited service will be better than no service at all. At the moment the Bantu are dependent on the charity of private individuals, of householders, shopkeepers, farmers, and so forth, if they wish to use a telephone on urgent business, for instance calling an ambulance or the police in time of emergency. I am sure that most traders would not be averse to my suggestion—in fact, I am sure that they would co-operate with the department in the provision of these services.

I want to raise a further question which the Minister knows I raised with his colleague the hon. the Minister of Public Works, and that is: the extensions to the telephone exchange in Pietermaritzburg. I asked the Minister of Public Works for an assurance that these extensions were going to be large enough to allow for expansion and development in Pietermaritzburg. The hon. member for Germiston mentioned earlier that the G.P.O. is planning 15 to 17 years ahead. I sincerely hope that the Minister and his department have planned at least 17 years ahead in Pietermaritzburg. I, unfortunately, have my doubts, because the Minister advised us that the extensions would house 2,000 new telephones, but we have also been advised by the Minister that already there are 809 applications for telephones outstanding in Pietermaritzburg. Therefore it would be a comfort to those of us who are concerned with Pietermaritzburg and that area to have an assurance from the Minister that he has planned far enough ahead and that he is satisfied that extensions that are still, shall I say, in the “planning stage“—because I believe that the tender has not yet been accepted and the construction has not yet started—will meet the demands. It is not yet too late to extend or expand the intended additional facilities there so that provision can be made possibly for additional telephones. I am sure that there is no need for me to repeat what I said to the hon. the Minister. He was here in his bench and he heard the details which I gave of the proposed development in Pietermaritzburg. I am sure that in the light of what I said the Minister will appreciate what I am getting at. Because efficient communications are so important, not only to commerce and industry but also to the man in the street and to his wife, in fact to the welfare of the whole country, we should like to have this assurance from the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down tried all the time to make a speech, but unfortunately our friend could not get off the ground. I want to ask the hon. member to bring substantial proof for the complaints he mentioned here. He should quote to the House the specific telephone numbers of the telephones which, according to him, remained unused for weeks and months. He should also be able to show the incorrect accounts here, because much ado is being made about some accounts which were possibly—and I admit this readily —made out incorrectly. Now I want to ask the Opposition this. They are only a small organization, and yet they make mistakes. Can the Post Office not also be expected to make mistakes now and then?

The hon. member for Parktown tried very seriously to suggest that directors of companies which own company vehicles on which they have to pay income-tax state at the end of the tax year that they have travelled 20,000 miles in the service of the company and 5,000 miles privately, and are then prepared to pay tax on the 5,000 miles. I want to ask the hon. member to provide this side of the House with a list of directors who act in this fashion. I want to submit that there are no company directors who state that they have travelled a certain distance in company vehicles for private purposes and who pay income-tax on that distance. I say there are no such people.

With a sob in his voice the hon. member for Orange Grove tried to prove that the Post Office was doing nothing as regards providing telephone facilities. Does the hon. member not read the annual reports of the Post Office? They are very good reports, and I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Department on those annual reports. If the hon. member had read the reports, he would have seen that from 1962 to 1966—five years —a total of 264,140 new contact points were provided. During this period of five years more new services were provided than existed in 1940, when there was a total of only 226,200. In 1945 there were only 279,500. I repeat: In the five-year period mentioned, 264,140 new contact points were provided. That means that hon. members on the opposite side are mistaken if they allege that the Post Office is doing nothing to expand the services. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to a shortage of about 44,000 instruments. I want to tell the hon. member that only approximately 8 or 9 per cent of those applications are business applications. Some of them are also applications in respect of industries. The remaining 91 or 92 per cent outstanding telephones are for private use. If we want to curb inflation, we should also make less use of this relative luxury. I concede that the aged and invalids need this service very much—for them it is an essential service. We do not dispute that. But new services are provided at a phenomenal rate. According to the latest annual report more new services were provided in the year under review, i.e. 1965-’66, than ever before in one year, namely 61,176 new telephone contact points. This is better than any previous achievement. The figures are much better than the corresponding figures for the years when the Opposition was in power.

There has also been a good deal of criticism this afternoon on the financing of services rendered by the Post Office. Hon. members should at least be consistent. Earlier this year the hon. members for Parktown and Orange Grove and other hon. members on that side complained of the high State expenditure. They said that this spending should be curtailed because it was the cause of our inflation. What are they doing now? They plead for more services; for many more services than the Minister and the Department provided in the course of the past year. They say that we should have provided more services; in other words, there should have been higher Government expenditure. As I said, two or three weeks ago the Opposition made a fervent plea for less Government spending. They presented the Government as being the factor which above all else encouraged and fostered inflation in the country. Now I ask: What do hon. members on the opposite side want? Do they want more services than the Post Office is providing or do they want fewer services and consequently lower State expenditure? They should tell us what they want.

The Opposition objected violently to the increase from 24 cents to 34 cents per local telephone call last year. But the Opposition failed to mention that since 1959 that tariff had never been increased. They say new services should be provided, but these should be financed from Loan Account and not from Revenue Account. One moment hon. members on the opposite side say the State should not spend because it supposedly promotes inflation, and the next moment they say the State should spend because new telephones are needed. They say they do not want 44,000 names on the waiting list. Well, hon. members on the opposite side are contradicting themselves: They want the best of both worlds.

I now want to say that in my view the Minister and the Department acted wisely in increasing the local telephone rates from 24 cents to 34 cents. I think it was necessary. The services which are requested have to be provided, but surely they have to be financed, and how are we to finance them? Should it be done from Loan Account or from Revenue Account? If they are financed from the latter account, then surely we have the right, and it is proper and wise, to increase the tariff.

No, Sir—hon. members on the opposite side can no longer convince this House and the public outside that the Minister, the Department and the staff are to blame for this leeway. Because the economic growth we have been experiencing since 1961 is an extraordinary development. As was said here on a previous occasion, it compares well with the best in the world; it even compares well with the sustained growth experienced in Japan. It is proof of the confidence vested in this country, not only locally but also abroad. It is the task of the Minister and the Department to provide the services requested. I want to congratulate the Minister and the Department on the rational and skilful way in which these services are provided.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. member for Wonderboom about income tax maters. I have a small matter in Pietermaritzburg City which I should like to see solved. I am referring to the shortage of postmen. The Post Office is definitely not keeping pace with the rapid development which is taking place in that city to-day. We have continual complaints from members of the public about delays in the delivery of post. Sometimes it takes from four to five days for postal matter to be delivered. I do not see why the public should suffer merely because there are no Europeans to fill the positions as postmen. We have advocated that non-Europeans should be employed. According to a cutting which I have here, the Minister last time replied that “It would not be advisable to employ non-Whites without the co-operation of white postmen.” I have another cutting here, from the Natal Witness of the 19th April. It is a photograph of a European postman assisting an Indian postman on his new round in the town. The Indian is one of 13 temporary Indian postmen now employed to try and alleviate the acute staff problem. Mr. Van der Walt, Postmaster of Pietermaritzburg, said that, although there were six non-European postmen employed in Indian areas, the 13 Indians were on rounds normally done by European postmen. There was a 25 per cent shortage of European postmen.

What I want to know is this. Must we accept the position that the European postmen’s associations now agree to the employment of Indian postmen in jobs reserved for Europeans? Is this now to be a forerunner for the whole of the Republic as far as employing non-European postmen is concerned? I myself say that this is a step in the right direction because it relieves the acute shortage in that particular department. Can these Indian postmen not be employed permanently and paid permanent wages and allowances?

Progress reported.