The hon. member for Salt River made the statement in his speech yesterday that the Government’s economic policy was based on mere wishful thinking in regard to an increase in the price of gold, and he challenged this side of the House to mention just one policy which had been implemented by this Government. Sir, the economic policy of the National Party Government has not only been implemented, it has been implemented with fabulous success. This is a fact which cannot be argued away. Statistics indicate that our economic progress in the past two decades has been fabulous. In this regard I should just like to furnish hon. members with a few figures. In 1965 the gross domestic product was approximately R45,000 million, and in 1966 it was approximately R70,000 million, expressed in real terms. In other words, allowance has been made for increased prices. Our gross domestic product displayed an annual rate of growth of more than 5 per cent. From an international point of view, this is phenomenal; it is a phenomenal rate of growth according to any norm. Furthermore, we find, if we analyse it, that the annual population increase has only been 2.5 per cent. In other words, the rate of growth of the gross domestic product of more than 5 per cent, has been achieved in spite of a population increase of only 2.5 per cent. That is an achievement of which any government may feel proud. When unresponsible statements are made by that side of the House, one begins to look at the statistics. It is interesting to note that since 1924 the domestic product has been established by the policy of this Government to keep pace on a modern, technological basis with the development throughout the entire world. If an analysis is made of the manufacturing industry and we take the index figure for 1956-’57 to be 100, then it is interesting to find that after 10 years the index figure for all industrial products had increased from 100 to 221.9, That is an achievement. Textiles had grown to 296.2, and transport equipment to 327.7. That is an indication of the implementation of a policy. Owing to the Railways and other Government undertakings and other organizations in the country supporting the motor industry with locally manufactured products, we had an index figure of 327.7 after 10 years—the hon. member for Salt River spoke about the past two decades, but I am speaking of one decade only. So we can continue and indicate that the rate of growth in the foodstuffs industry i.e. 155.9, and in the basic metal (242.5), machinery, chemical, and metal product industries have all shown considerable increases. There has been an overall

Col. 564:

line 21: For “R45,000”, read “R4,500”.

line 22: For “R70,000”, read “R7,000”.

growth in our production of manufactured products. And what is significant, is that this all took place when the gold price was fixed, and here I simply cannot understand the Opposition The hon. member for Hillbrow levelled the charge against the Government in the no-confidence debate last year that the gold-mining industry was in a pitiable state, but behind the screens it was simply that he wanted to break through the colour dividing line. Now the hon. member for Salt River has come forward in this debate with the statement that an increase in the gold price, if this should be done, would merely be a devaluation of the rand. Surely that is nonsense. No plea has ever been raised for the devaluation of the rand, but former Ministers of the National Party Government, such as the late Dr. Donges, as well as the present Minister, Dr. Diederichs, have consistently asked that the price of gold be increased in regard to all currencies; in other words, not only in regard to the rand, but in regard to sterling, the dollar and all other currencies. I do not know whether that remark was made purely as a result of the ignorance of the hon. member for Salt River or whether it is the reply of the Opposition in regard to the increase in the price of gold, but it is very irresponsible to make the statement that all it would mean would be that the rand would be devalued. Does the hon. member for Salt River not realize what an increase in the gold price would mean? Does he not realize that one of the greatest international problems today is the lack of liquidity and that monetarily speaking, we find that countries do not have sufficient reserves? International trade to-day is based on a far broader basis than it was two decades ago when they were in power. Does the hon. member not realize that our reserves to-day stand at more than R500 million. in comparison with R171 million just before South Africa became a Republic? If the gold price is increased, the value of our reserves will be over R1,000 million. That is why I say the Opposition is being irresponsible when they make speeches of this kind in regard to this commodity, the commodity for which there is a world-wide demand, a commodity which in my opinion is unique. As far as I know it is the only commodity for which a market need not be sought. On the contrary, gold finds its own market. I would just like to mention now what Mr. Stratton, the Managing Director of Union Corporation, has said in regard to the effect of doubling the gold price. In his speech made during the annual meeting of the American Mining Congress in Salt Lake City, Utah, he stated that only 42 per cent of the free world’s gold production and Russian gold sales during the past 13 years had found its way into monetary reserves. The rest, an astounding 298 million ounces, the equivalent of the South African yield for almost 10 years at the present rate, was taken up by the arts and crafts industries and the private gold collectors, who regard gold at 35 dollars per fine ounce as cheap and who are even prepared to pay considerable premiums to get hold of gold. It appears, therefore, that the reserves are not being supplemented under the present circumstances, but that the private sector is absorbing this gold.

It is an immoral act against South Africa, a country which sells R2 million worth of gold on the London market daily, a country which produces 70 per cent or more of the free world’s gold, that the price of gold should remain fixed. If the price of gold were to be doubled, further measures against inflation would not be necessary in South Africa. On the contrary, our present hon. Minister of Finance and our strong Government will see to it that all additional profits will not be channelized into the pockets of hon. members on the opposite side, but that it will go into a reserve fund, which need not be inflationary in any way. On the contrary, it is a fund which may be utilized when we are stricken by emergencies and drought conditions. This country experiences conditions like that year in and year out.

An increase in the gold price is a matter of national importance; it is not a matter to be flung about in the political arena as hon. members on that side are inclined to do. First they are predicting that the price of gold will not be increased, then when they think it will be increased. they are envious because they know that this Government will not allow the profits which will result from an increased gold price to go into the pockets of that side, but that it will be used in the national interests. This side has a policy to implement, a policy which has up to now been consistently implemented. An increase in the price of gold, however will facilitate the application of the policy. The Opposition knows that, and it is one of the reasons why they are now becoming so nervous about the possibility of an increase in the gold price.

Our gold is sold in London. South African gold to the value of R2 million is being sold on the London market daily. Britain not only benefits from that as a result of the commission earned, but it also benefits as a result of the prestige value of the privilege of acting as agent for the sales of this prestige mineral. I do not want to be derogatory, but I do not think that Britain is entitled to the status it acquires by acting as agent for the selling of our gold, and in that regard I want to ask the hon. Minister what possibility exists of finding other marketing channels. I am thinking here of the European Continent, of a country such as France, which has never taken steps to oppose us with weapons boycotts. France reveals its confidence in this commodity every day. She is prepared to do business with us on a friendly basis. Is it not possible to channelize our gold to France? In fact, the British Premier himself has stated that Britain no longer enjoys its former status. I think that we are entitled to having this commodity sold in a country which does in fact have the necessary status. Of course. South Africa must suffer no loss if such a step should be taken. I know that there will be problems in regard to transport and air services. I realize that, but I am convinced that the possibility nevertheless exists that we will be able to channelize our gold to the countries that already belong to Euromart, since the Euromart countries are countries which have to trade internationally. In comparison with America, which is practically self-supporting, the Euromart countries are countries which are looking for import and export markets. South Africa, a young and dynamic country has no further moral link with a country like England, even though the hon. member for South Coast felt like marching a few years ago, and even if he has wept copious crocodile tears. Those are days belonging to the past. To-day South Africa is entitled to attempt to find other channels if it should be to South Africa’s benefit to do so. I am convinced that there will be an increase in the price of gold. It was encouraging to see that at the meeting of the International Monetary Fund last year, how firmly the hon. the Minister put this point. I want to quote what he said—

These are fine, strong words. In other words, it is a challenge to South Africa, and I think that we should accept the challenge and be prepared to make temporary sacrifices, even if it should mean that there would be a restriction on the export of gold. This would unchain a reaction throughout the rest of the world, for the reasons which I have indicated earlier on. The confidence expressed by the private sector in gold as the basis of all currencies. cannot be changed overnight. In the light of this, the hon. exposition should also lend their whole-hearted support to this idea expressed by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, it is a question of time. They will have to increase the price of gold, and that will be a great day for South Africa. I think that if ever the time was ripe, then that time is now, since we as a nation have adopted a course. We have our own identity to-day and the funds are necessary to enable us to move outwards because this country and people, and the attitude adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government should serve as an example to the rest of the world. South Africa can move outwards and South Africa will move outwards as long as our economy is on a sound basis. This will be the basis when we obtain the proper price to which we are entitled for the commodity of gold which we as a nation are able to produce here in our own country.

Mr. Speaker. I do not know Whom the hon. member for Rustenburg was trying to convince because we, on this side of the House, as I believe all South Africans have always done, have always supported and pleaded for an increase in the price of gold. Therefore the hon. member does not have to plead for our support on this matter. He does not need to ask for it; he has got it. As far as the other point which he made is concerned, I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Finance, who has followed the traditional South African approach in his handling of the gold question, will doubtless answer the hon. member. For the rest, all we heard from the hon. member for Rustenburg was that South Africa had made fantastic economic progress. Earlier in the debate we heard from Ministers and others about the importance of private initiative and enterprise in the South African economy. Does that hon. member not realize that this development has taken place because of the strength and initiative and courage of the private entrepreneur in South Africa? It has also taken place because the Government has not carried out its declared policy. [Interjections.] In every single field in which progress has been made, it has been made because the Government has not carried out what it claims to be its policy. The development has taken place in industries employing Bantu and other non-white labour. It has taken place despite the efforts of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and if that hon. Deputy Minister succeeds with his removal of Bantu labour from industry, his 5 per cent per year reduction, then we will have a different story and a very sad story in five or ten years’ time in this House. But we do not hear a word from the hon. member, not a word on the charges, the points made from this side of the House. He seems to have forgotten that the issue before this House is a request by the Government for R550 million with which to carry on its mal-administration of South Africa. We, on this side of the House, have objected for certain reasons, inter alia, which we have specified. We have objected because we do not believe that South Africa is getting value for the expenditure of the taxpayers’ money During the course of this debate we have heard some interesting reasons why the Government should have this money. We heard, for instance, that the cost of living has risen more in Brazil and various other countries than it has risen in South Africa. We have heard that the Bantu standard of living is lower in the Congo, Tanganyika, Ghana and I do not know where not than it is in South Africa. I am not interested in whether there is a worse place than South Africa. There are an awful lot of places in the world worse than South Africa. I believe this is one of the greatest countries in the world in which it is possible to live, the only country —and one in which I am proud to live. Therefore I am not interested to hear that another country is worse off than we are. I am interested in our people in South Africa and the problems which they face. I accept that things are being done to raise the Bantu standard of living. At least one group can look forward. according to the Bantu Education Journal of late last year, to a very much improved position I see that the Bantu Education Journal tells its teachers that shortly they are going to have their own people who are going to be called chief control officers and control officers. It says: “They will receive salaries”—that is fair enough—“and we expect that they will also have the use of official cars when they have to travel on duty in connection with their work—but not when they go home for the weekend. They will be important and honoured people, almost like Cabinet Ministers.” They are not going to be allowed to go home in their cars over the weekend, even if they are almost like Cabinet Ministers. So at least there is someone who has something to look forward to as a result of this money which we are now being asked to vote.

Then, of course, we are being asked to vote for the administration. I do not see the hon. member for Queenstown here. I would like to have asked his view on this. I hear that in his constituency the Department of Labour recently had a new line of thought in seeking employment for white South Africans. In this case it was a white married lady who was offered employment by the Department of Labour in an Indian industry. Is that why there is no unemployment? However, those are the sort of things which can be dealt with in detail when we come to the administration of the department. We are interested in this debate in the broader picture.

Only yesterday we heard in this House the challenge of the Prime Minister repeated—his challenge to name any group in South Africa - whose standard of living was worse now than two years ago. This challenge of his was repeated and confirmed. When the challenge was first made last week I named six groups which in my opinion were not enjoying a better standard of living than that they enjoyed two years ago.

One of these groups is the fixed investment group—the person who has retired on a fixed investment with a fixed income. I now want to challenge hon. members on that side of the House to say in this debate that they believe that a person with a fixed income from investment at a fixed interest rate is better off to-day than two years ago. I challenge them to say so. I want to hear them saying so, so that I can go back to those people to tell them that the interest which this Government has in their problems is to say that they are enjoying a better standard of living to-day. But no, Mr. Speaker, it is “zip!”; they are quiet now. I do not notice any hon. members rushing to say that the person who retired on a fixed investment is better off than he was two years ago.

Another group I mentioned last week was civil and commercial pensioners, people who were living on an income which was fixed perhaps five, perhaps ten or more, years ago and on which they could come out at the time they retired. To-day, while they are still drawing the same amount of money, they have to pay more for almost every single thing they buy. Do hon. members opposite therefore support the hon. the Prime Minister when he says that these people are better off than they were two years ago? Mr. Speaker, we hear no enthusiastic “hear, hears”, now. Unless hon. members on the other side come forward and challenge the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister and support us when we say that these groups are not better off, we must accept that by their silence they agree with him. Do hon. members in fact agree? Does that hon. Deputy Minister agree?

Vause, you can do much better than that.

We are dealing with the interests of people of South Africa and not with the people of Tanzania or of Brazil. I have maintained that there are people in South Africa to-day who are struggling and suffering and the only response we have from the hon. the Prime Minister is his statement that they are not worse off than they were two years ago. Let me press this point because this is a question of the Government’s attitude towards the people of South Africa. We are entitled to know, as are the people of South Africa, the extent of sympathy they can expect from this Government towards their problems. [Interjections.] So, when they are told that they are better off—although we know that that is not so and they know it is not so—we are entitled to tell them that the response of the Government members is to laugh at their plight. [Interjections.]

That is not so. We are laughing at you.

Or are hon. members laughing at their own discomfort? Let us look at the position of the home seeker, the person looking for a home. Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Finance announced assistance to building societies. Now hon. members of the Government sit back in smug satisfaction, as though they have solved the problem. But I maintain that the home seeker of to-day, particularly the young married couple, cannot under the present circumstances—-unless he has inherited or obtained money from some similar source—afford to buy or build a home for himself. It is a question of fact that the position to-day is much worse than it was two years ago. Do members say, that is not so? Do they say that these people are not worse off?

You are making a sweeping statement.

Of course it is a sweeping statement but it is absolutely true nevertheless. Because a statement is shattering the morale of hon. members opposite, that does not make it less true.

Take the position of the small businessman and the farmer. I shall return to the farmer in a moment. But let me say this: However satisfied the Government and its members may be with the official cost-of-living index, as far as I am concerned it doesn’t mean a thing when it comes to the real position of the people. We have heard the parrot cry, “only 2 per cent increase in cost of living over the past year” and “there was a reduction in October and November”. Well, I do not know how these figures are obtained, but ask any housewife in South Africa whether she thinks she is only 2 per cent worse off than a year ago. Ask them that. I do not know what is omitted from this index, but from the experience of the people I know and from my own experience—which, I think is the experience of almost every member here—it is far more than 2 per cent more difficult to make ends meet to-day than it was a year ago. Motor-cars, for instance, are not included in the index, and yet a motor-car is an essential item to most people—to commercial travellers, to people who have to go to work where there is no public transport, etc. Yet this item is completely omitted from the index, J understand. However that index is compiled, I do not think it represents the true position of the people of South Africa. We even had the hon. member for Sunnyside getting up and saying he is proud that his wife works. Many wives have to go out to work. And the hon. member pushes out his chest and says he is proud that his wife works. The wives of many of us have to work. But we are not proud of that fact—we are ashamed of it. We are ashamed that they have to work because of economic necessity. So it is with 80 per cent of the working wives of South Africa —they do not want to work; they don’t go out to work by their own choice. They go to work because they have to and they cannot survive otherwise. If their standard of living has been raised in that way—and if that is the basis for the Prime Minister’s claim that the standard of living has risen—then I say it is a tragedy for South Africa that the standard of living has to be raised at the cost of family life. This apartheid Government is forcing wives to go out to work and leave their children in the care of non-white nursemaids. [Interjections.] No, Mr Speaker, that is not something to be proud of, and I do not believe that the people of South Africa are proud to know that that is the only way in which a large proportion of our people can make ends meet. Over and over again we have pleaded for the introduction of a sliding scale of cost-of-living allowances, a sliding scale so that salaries, particularly in the public service, may go up commensurate with the cost of living. But our plea has been rejected as often as we have proposed it. It is to this type of attitude that we are entitled to demand an answer from the Government.

I now come to the position of the farmers. They are supposed to be so much better off. But only this morning we could read the following in Die Burger—

This is according to the Director of the S.A. Agricultural Union. Yet last week the hon. the Prime Minister pooh-poohed the idea that the farmer, except for a few, might be worse off. But now we hear—

It ends as follows—

It should be the Minister of Finance. But here we have an announcement that towards the end of last year the official organ of South African agriculture, the South African Agricultural Union, approached the hon. the Prime Minister …

Why do you skip two paragraphs?

I am prepared to read it all, but my time is limited. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with the drought, which is referred to in the one paragraph, and with the question of seed and fertilizer, which is referred to in the other. Sir, my case is that the Prime Minister said that no group was worse off. I am not interested in why they are worse off; I am interested in the fact that they are worse off. Here we are told that they are R200 million worse off than they were two years ago. What sympathy do they get? We are told that they are better off and that only a few people are in trouble.

Sir. we have heard of the shortage of staff in the Department of Agriculture, staff which may be able to assist the farmers. My charge to-day is that even when the Government has staff, it prevents them from doing their job properly. I want to deal with a specific field, the field of agricultural engineers. The Government has, and has had even more, first-class, outstanding, well-trained, fully-qualified men in this Department, men dedicated to serving the farmers of South Africa. As far back as 1958 one of the Government’s own agricultural engineers made a detailed study in depth of mechanization and its problems. He submitted his findings to the Government and eventually, in utter frustration, he resigned from the service. [Interjections.] I am not interested in who it is; I am interested in the facts. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to deny the facts which I intend giving the House.

A little knowledge is dangerous.

I am going to deal with some of the issues which, in discussions within the last three weeks, have formed the basis of complaint not only from the ex-engineer who did this survey but from a serving member who is to-day in this department and who confirms this information. I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny that agricultural engineers whose duty it is to advise and guide farmers on the best and the most economical and proficient utilization of their machinery, including their vehicles, are forbidden from recommending re-refined oil for use by farmers. I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny that. They are forbidden to recommend it although the S.A. Bureau of Standards has a specification for this. I have the assurance of two members of the department that they are not permitted to recommend the use of re-refined oil.

Do you want them to be salesmen for the Total Oil Company?

No, I want them to be able to advise the farmer on how to reduce his costs and so reduce the cost of food to the people of South Africa. Here the Government puts its stamp of approval on a product and the officials of the department are not prepared to back up the stamp of the S.A. Bureau of Standards by advising the farmers accordingly.

I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny that investigations and experiments were made into the surface hardening of ground-wearing implements, that those experiments in Natal were making considerable progress, and that it had reached the stage where those concerned with the experiments believed that they could increase the life of plough-shares and other ground-wearing surfaces by up to three times their normal life. Then they were told that they were not only not allowed to tell farmers about it but that they were not to let farmers come and see the experiments in progress. Thereafter those experiments were dropped.

I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny that engineering officers are not allowed to recommend the use of dry air cleaners on tractors, even though it is known and proven to the department that they have a life of up to 18 months compared to three months of a wet air filter. [Interjection.! Sir, I am not talking of specific brands. When you talk of a dry air filter as against a wet air filter, you are not advertising a particular make; but you are dealing with a type and with costs—costs which the farmer has to face and which the Government knows it can assist in reducing. Instead of that, however, the Government, by deliberate action, prevents its own officers from advising farmers to use dry air filters.

Does the hon. the Minister deny that where a farmer purchases an implement or a vehicle and it has a factory fault, the engineer is not allowed advise the farmer to claim against the supplier? Will the hon. the Minister deny that in one specific case where an engineer was able to advise the farmer to make better use of his existing equipment and so obviate the need to buy another tractor, the man who was negotiating the sale of the tractor reported him to the department and he was hauled over the coals for interfering in private enterprise. Although he had enabled the farmer to save himself thousands of rands by better utilization of his equipment, he was reprimanded because of a complaint that he had prevented the sale of a tractor. Does the hon. the Minister deny that there are 27 different makes and over a hundred models of tractors in South Africa and that his engineers claim that by recommending unbranded parts they can cut the costs of maintenance by as much as 33 per cent? But they are not allowed to do it. They are not allowed to do it, even though they do not mention the name of any firm or group of firms. One of these officers was told by one of the implement firms, “We cannot have you casehardening your shares; we want to sell ploughshares; we cannot have you advocating dry air filters; it is our job to sell piston rings and spare parts”.

I should like to ask the hon. member when the engineer to whom he has referred left the Public Service, whether he resigned from the Service voluntarily, and whether the Fram oil filter was involved in the matter.

I said that one member had resigned from the Service. I also said that these facts were confirmed by a serving member in the Service, quite independently.

In 1963?

The hon. member thinks that because something happened in 1963, that makes it less serious. Sir, I am challenging the hon. the Deputy Minister on the position as it exists to-day. That was the position in 1963. I challenge the Deputy Minister to deny that that is still the position to-day. I challenge him to deny that engineers are not allowed to recommend retreads. Yet a great deal could be saved and many farmers in this House—probably all of them or most of them—themselves use retreads, but the Government does not allow its engineers to recommend the retreading of tyres. Sir. these are the people who spend their life trying to work out how to aid and assist the farmer and to reduce his costs. And yet every time they find a way in which they can help the farmer barriers are out in their way, until there is nothing but frustration. They say that they are hitting their heads against a brick wall because their job is to try to aid the farmers in their mechanization, to assist them to reduce their costs and to increase their efficiency. But they say that when they find some way which will not push the products of any individual manufacturer, but something which is in the interest of the farmers themselves they get an official directive. They have had a directive that they are not allowed to consult any commercial firm in order to obtain information on the research they are doing. How can you do research if you cannot make use of the knowledge, the facilities and the experience of people whose business it is to do this research? [Interjection.] What I am interested in, and the charge that I make, is that this Government, even where it has the trained men and the facilities, is not able to make use of that in the interest of the agricultural community. Yet we are told that the farmers of South Africa are better off, despite their R200 million additional debt. Other speakers on this side of the House will deal with the economic side, and we will probably hear from the Government the old, old cry: “Maar ons kan nie die droogte help nie”. It is not a question of avoiding drought, but a question of putting agriculture on a sound economic footing and allowing for a risk factor in the pricing policy of the Government, a risk factor which will enable the farmer to build up a cushion, a reserve against droughts and the bad years. When a man is not allowed to build up a cushion or reserve to deal with his difficulties and problems, then when those difficulties hit him he has no way of coping with them. We heard an appeal only yesterday from an hon. member on the Government side who said that he would be coming to the Government soon on behalf of farmers who are facing insolvency. Yes, Sir, they are facing it, and that is the time to deal with it and not after they have gone bankrupt—not after it is too late to save them. We on this side of the House believe that the Government is failing in its duty towards the farmers of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, since today is the first time I am speaking in this House, the hon. member for Durban (Point) will excuse me if I do not reply to his speech. But I would very much like to mention the name of my predecessor. The late Mr. Martiens Bekker was a very well-loved person in his constituency and amongst his people. I know that he was a very well-loved man in this House as well. His greatness lay in his willingness to help, his friendliness and his diligence. I should like to pay tribute to him.

I am proud to represent our constituency, Potgietersrus, in this House. Potgietersrus is one of the largest rural constituencies in the Northern Transvaal. Of the six largest constituencies in the Transvaal, four are situated in the Northern Transvaal, and one of them is Potgietersrus. The Potgietersrus constituency presents a very good cross-section of all the people and the various activities in the Republic. Some of the most fertile soil in the country is to be found in that constituency. We also have four of the finest towns in the Transvaal, namely Potgietersrus itself. Warmbaths, Groblersdal and Marble Hall. It has not been lacking in achievements either. But this constituency would excel even more if it were not for the drought which is now prevailing and which has prevailed for the past few years. The droughts of the past few years have left their mark in the Northern Transvaal, and the constituency of Potgietersrus has not been spared. But we want to thank the departments and particularly the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, for the assistance afforded us in these times of drought. The drought has struck again this season. I know that the same applied in many other constituencies, but it will take quite a few years before the farmers in our constituency are able to rehabilitate themselves to such an extent that they will be able to make a decent living.

In the Springbok Flats there is some of the best black and red soil one can find in the entire country. In this constituency we have three major State irrigation schemes, as well as private schemes, and the soil there is also of the best one’s heart can desire. At the moment these people, the plot owners, are still in the fortunate position that the irrigation dams, namely Loskop Dam, Pienaars River Dam, and Rust der Winter Dam, are still approximately 90 per cent full. Pienaars River Dam is still overflowing at the moment. That dam overflowed last year for the first time since it was completed in 1959. But, for the sake of comparison, I would just like to emphasize to you the importance of these schemes. Listed under Loskop Dam there are 19,009 morgen. Added to that there is the Hereford Scheme, a private scheme which also draws water from the Loskop Dam, with a listed 2,450 morgen. These irrigation schemes at Loskop are the second largest State irrigation scheme in the country, and they are only surpassed by the Vaalharts Scheme. They are old, well-tried schemes, and some of the best products are cultivated there. All kinds of vegetables imaginable are cultivated under the Loskop Scheme, apart from the almost 1.5 million bags of wheat, a product which our country still has to import. In addition cotton, tobacco, maize and other cereal products, are also being cultivated there. It is interesting to know that 50 per cent of the Republic’s production of condiments, which are generally known as pickles, come from the Loskop Scheme. That makes it a truly laudable achievement. It is also interesting to observe the activities at that irrigation scheme. For example, when it is picking time for green peas and green beans and one arrives at Marble Hall and Groblersdal towards evening, one stands amazed to see the activity there. This scheme makes use of manual labour on a very large scale; 16,000 tons of green peas and 12,000 tons of green beans are produced there under that scheme, and are transported to the canning factories during the night.

I should like to refer to the promise made by our State President elect when he was still Minister of Water Affairs. It was during the second half of last year that he made the promise that the dam wall at Loskop Dam would be raised toy 30 feet within the next five years. That emphasizes the importance of this scheme, tout unfortunately no mention was made of a specific time. Provision has not yet been made for this scheme in the Estimates and I want to raise the plea here to-day that this House should lend its approval to tackling that scheme as quickly as possible, i.e. the raising of the dam wall there, and that thought should be given as quickly as possible to an estimate of the expenses to be incurred there. The reason for doing so is the following. The drought may return. Two years ago those plot owners had to manage despite tremendous water restrictions. Their water was rationed, and that set them back a great deal. It plunged them into debt again when they had just begun to get back on their feet again. To prevent these disasters, I am now pleading for immediate attention to be given to raising the dam wall. There are numerous other reasons, but they have been sumitted to the hon. Minister, by the local committee at Groblersdal and Marble Hall; therefore I do not think it is necessary for me now to repeat them again here.

I have mentioned the four large towns in my constituency, tout there are also quite a number of smaller communities. I am thinking here of Pienaars River, Settlers, Roedtan, Dennilton, Tuinplaas—all these places are also dependent upon the large towns around which they are situated. Potgietersrus and Warmbaths have themselves suffered heavily from strict water restrictions during the past years. The former town has a population of 6,000 Whites, as well as 6,500 non-Whites; whereas Warmbaths has 2,500 Whites and 3,500 non-Whites. These towns have had to resort to boreholes for their water supply during the past few years, and it can happen again that they are stricken by drought and they will have to bore again and incur additional expenditure. At the moment Potgietersrus is experiencing one of its worst water shortages in living memory. The town council has even considered having water brought in by train. Just think what tremendous expenditure that would entail. But once again I want to express thanks to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs for the assistance afforded there. He very generously agreed to make water out of the Sterk River Scheme at the Sterk River Dam available to the town of Potgietersrus. At the present moment they are working feverishly to complete the laying of that pipeline to the scheme so that water can be brought to Potgietersrus as quickly as possible, but it will still be a few months before that work is completed.

To emphasize the urgency of water provision I should just like to read a short extract from a report which appeared in Die Transvaler of 15th February, 1967. The report appeared under the heading “Revelation in regard to South African Water Consumption”, and read as follows (translation)—

The report continues and, emphasizing local authorities now, reads as follows (translation)—

The following particulars are also supplied. In 1965 the daily consumption by local authorities throughout the country was 344 million gallons per day. In 1980 it is expected to be 621 million gallons per day, almost twice as much as in 1965, and in the year 2000 it is expected to toe 1,071 million gallons per day. I quote further from the report (translation)—

Quite a number of municipalities are also obtaining part of their water from the Vaal River. Twenty-eight large municipalities draw water from this river. Twenty-one major industries and mines also draw water from the Vaal River. That shows us what a great national asset our country’s water is. especially our large rivers and dams. We also think of the smaller rivers in the country, in the interior. There is the tremendous Orange River Scheme on which work is now in progress. It was so encouraging to hear the retired Minister of Water Affairs announce last month that a comprehensive water plan for the Boland would shortly toe announced. We also bear in mind those people in that part of the country, and their need.

I want to raise a second plea as well to-day, which is that a start should be made with a comprehensive water plan for the Northern Transvaal north of Pretoria. Such a plan has become urgently necessary now. An investigation should toe made into our water resources, the possibilities of building new large dams, so that municipalities, such as Potgietersrus and Warmbaths for example, need not in future suffer under these oppressive water shortages and restrictions.

I have boasted of the achievements of my constituency, tout that was done in order to indicate how urgently necessary it is that the needs of this constituency and the area should be seen to as far as water provision is concerned. Apart from the achievements and the productivity of the constituency which I have already mentioned, I should just like to refer briefly to the mining activities in that constituency. Some of our largest Chrome and fluorspar mines are situated in that constituency. Some of the larget gypsum and lime mines are to be found there. We also think of the well-known Zebediela citrus estate. Then there is also the agricultural research station Tawoomba, near Warmbaths, and the fish hatchery near Marble Hall. There is also a tremendously large agricultural school for English-speaking pupils under construction at Settlers. This all goes to show how important my constituency is. But that is not yet all. My constituency lends itself very well to tourism, one of our country’s greatest sources of income. Which one of us is not acquainted with the holiday resort at Loskop Dam and the pleasure resort at Warmbaths? Mr. Speaker, I want to invite you and hon. members of this House to pay a visit to this constituency during the recess and to avail yourselves of the warm hospitality of its people.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Potgietersrus sincerely on his maiden speech which he has just made. I think the hon. member amazed us all because he showed no signs of nervousness. But over and above that, he showed that he was very well acquainted with what was going on in his constitutency, what the circumstances there were, and what problems his constituency were faced with. I therefore think that the hon. member for Potgietersrus will be a worthy successor to the late Mr. Martiens Bekker. On behalf of us all, I want to congratulate him and wish him all the best in this House.

We have heard the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown, and I think it is now necessary for us to say a few things about and discuss our agricultural industry. But before we come to that, I want to say that I found it very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Queenstown. He said that the Government had succeeded in combating inflation, according to the rate of inflation of 1.8 per cent last year. But then the hon. member added that this was regarded as normal by economists throughout the world, that an increase in the rate of inflation of 2 per cent per annum was emite normal. If the hon. member’s statement is correct, then surely one is entitled to ask whether the Government has not gone too far and whether it has not placed a sufficient curb on inflation in South Africa? The hon. member for Queenstown also said that everybody was quite satisfied with the way in which the Government had progressed in the combating of inflation in South Africa. But the hon. member had apparently forgotten about an important speech made last year in Port Elizabeth by Mr. Van Aswegen, managing director of the Santam group in South Africa. He said the following—

He criticized the Government for having taken many of its steps too late and for often having done too little. He criticized the Government for not curbing its own spending, but at the same time expecting private initiative, commerce, industry and agriculture to do so.

Do you also think so?

No, it is precisely my intention to show the hon. member that all these measures which had to be adopted, had a tremendously prejudicial effect on the agricultural industry of South Africa. I hope to demonstrate this to the hon. the Minister in the course of my speech. We think that the agricultural industry in South Africa has passed through perilous straits during the past 20 years under National Party rule. We on this side of the House believe that confidence in the agricultural industry has now reached a low-water mark. This is due mainly to a few factors. One of these factors is the unwillingness of the Government in the past to take timeous steps to place our agricultural industry on an economic basis. Large numbers of farmers who were unable to endure the situation any longer retired, and to-day we have the position that those who remain, have so many financial burdens that the situation has become almost unbearable for them too. For them the future definitely seems to be a black one. I am pleased that the hon. member for Durban (Point) quoted what Mr. Chris Cilliers said yesterday, reports of which have appeared in to-day’s newspapers. Apart from drought conditions this process of the load of debts burdening the farmer steadily increasing, is not a process which began in the past few years; it did not begin in the past six years of drought as the hon. member for Pietersburg maintained. It is a process which has been in progress for much longer than that and which was chiefly brought about because, as I have said, the Government omitted to place our industry on an economic basis. The hon. member for Standerton has seen the United Party motion. It requests that our industry, both as regards long and short term policy, be placed on a sound basis.

How?

We shall explain that to the hon. member. He must just exercise a little patience. The situation of our farmers is such that their capital reserves are totally depleted. In the past two years they have been compelled, as a result of the measures which this Government took to combat inflation, to pay tremendously high rates of interest. As a result of this policy the ‘burden upon our farmers in South Africa is becoming even more unbearable. Mr. Speaker, the position has become so serious that a deputation of wool growers went to the hon. the Prime Minister to have an interview with him. Initially they wanted to go to him directly, as the Post Office workers did, but the farmers were then informed that protocol demanded that they should, after all, go through the Ministers of Agriculture. Now the question we can ask is the following. I am very sorry the hon. the Minister of Finance was unable in his speech yesterday to give us an indication of what the amount is going to be in this respect to people who have been affected by the tremendously high rates of interest. These farmers spoke to the hon. the Prime Minister. The Ministers of Agriculture were also present, but those people are still waiting for a reply.

How do you know?

I shall tell the hon. member. A few weeks ago Mr. J. F. van Wyk opened a show in Worcester and there he mentioned in public that they had seen the hon. the Prime Minister and that they were still waiting for a reply on the part of the Government. According to a report in Die Beeld of 15th October, 1967, Mr. Uys had the following to say to the wool farmers. I am reading from the report (translation)—

That is the situation which exists to-day.

To whom are they selling?

The report states that they are selling land to the land barons.

Are they farmers?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows who they are, and he knows that they are in fact taking advantage of this situation. He can ask the hon. member for Queenstown because he comes from Prieska. He knows that during the past few months land has been put up for sale. To what level did the prices of that land not sink? The people did not even sell. It would happen in my own district if there should be an auction tomorrow. That is, in fact, the situation which has now been created. For the big man with capital the position is an excellent one for exploiting and forcing the other farmers off the land. The Minister of Agriculture told us a few years ago that high prices for farmers were not a good thing, because the higher the prices became, the easier it was for the land barons to buy them out. But now the position has changed, and it is even easier for the land barons to buy them out. This is the position which exists to-day under this Government. I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister of Finance. We take it that the Cabinet has on this occasion, already …

What is a land baron?

The hon. member must not try now to distract me from my speech. The hon. member for Colesberg is a wonderful example of a land baron in more than one respect. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance the following. What reply are they going to give these people? What are the prospects in the coming Estimates for these people? Their position is becoming increasingly untenable, and the more time is allowed to elapse the more difficult the position of these farmers becomes. The hon. the Minister of Finance ought to give us an indication. I want to insist that, if he has not yet come to a decision, he open his heart and his purse as wide as possible to these people who find themselves in this situation, because on the basis which we have in South Africa to-day, we simply cannot go on. I want to mention an example to the hon. the Minister of Finance to indicate what the situation is. If he should take his motor car or travel by aeroplane today there is only one part of the Cape where agricultural conditions are not unsound. That is here from the Western Province to the southern Cape, but the moment he crosses the mountains, right up to Mafeking through to north-eastern Cape, there is not one area where the situation is not serious. The Cape is bigger than all the other provinces put together. [Interjections.] But the hon. member ought to know his geography. Unless something is done to deal with the situation in which most of the farmers in the interior, within the horse-shoe of the Cape, have found themselves, I foresee a black future for them. I want to suggest the following to the hon. the Minister of Finance for consideration. These people have not had a surplus of money during the past six to ten years. The last good year the wool farmer in South Africa had, was during 1957-’58, almost ten years ago. They had such a good year that they even complained about income tax. But one no longer finds that to-day. To-day they are not holding a congress to discuss income tax, because they simply do not have the income to cause them to feel concerned about high rates of income tax which others have to pay. Because that is the situation those people have found themselves in they have not been able to spend recklessly and in that way bring more money into circulation. In other words, those people were not responsible for causing inflation. There are some people who have enjoyed the benefits of inflation in South Africa. Those people in the rural areas of the Cape have not enjoyed them at all. Therefore, if one were now to grant them major financial support, no further inflation whatsoever would be created there. On the contrary, these people were forced to make use of a great deal of credit from the bank and other commercial institutions. As a result this inevitably reduced the buying power there, which also had its influence in other sectors of the economy. One need only go and talk to the commercial travellers. Is the situation in the country areas still the same as it was a few years ago? Are their orders still the same? No, Sir, because that is the situation to-day in this large country area of South Africa, namely the Cape, one also finds that the local corporations, the businessmen, the garages, etc., are also suffering as a result of the weak position of our agricultural industry. For these people, on whose behalf I should like to raise a plea today—and I know there are many hon. members on the opposite side who feel the same way and will confirm this, because they know the position—credit restrictions and increases in rates of interest have been a hard and merciless blow. It is no wonder that a man such as Mr. Frans van Wyk stated, last year before the wool season began, that the withdrawals of wool farmers from their brokers had already amounted to approximately R22 million. They were forced to do so because of their weak position.

Does the Government fix wool prices?

No, Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member knows that it does not do so. Surely it makes no difference who determines the wool price, or whether it is sold on a public market, or where it is sold. What I am sketching is the weak economic and financial situation which is prevailing amongst those people. [Interjections.] It makes no difference for what reason this is the case. I am sketching the situation there. Does the hon. member want to tell me that, because the Government cannot be held responsible for the drought, it should do nothing? That is to say, if the hon. member’s argument is correct? When requests are made for sacrifices to help combat inflation in the country such requests are not heard by people in the interior of the Cape. They fall on deaf ears because they have already made sacrifices when others had plenty of money and they did not.

It is no wonder that, when it is asked that women should rather wash their own hair before going to the hairdresser, when it is asked that women should tear their tissues in half so as to save, when it is said that certain men should go on a diet in order to save, and when some women say that they are saving by giving commands in the kitchen themselves, these things are more a source of merriment and amusement than serious consideration by the people in the rural areas.

When did you last go for a “perm”?

I do not need one. It is the hon. Deputy Minister who needs a “perm” to make something of him.

But I also want to add the following to this, namely that the farmer in the interior particularly is shocked by this kind of thing. Then this kind of thing is still being said there, such as this speech by the hon. the Administrator of the Cape, made a while ago at Middelburg. This is the type of speech which the farmers of South Africa find shocking to-day and which present an entirely distorted picture of the farmer of South Africa. I would just like to read to the hon. the Minister what he said on that occasion. He said that the time had passed when a farmer could buy a shiny new motor car, a new tractor or radio every year, or run his wife into town three times a week to have her hair done, to see the latest movie, or to pay a visit to a few friends in order to invite them to the farm for tennis and a braaivleis on Saturday afternoon.

Shame!

Yes, the hon. member can well say “shame”. That is the type of impression which is being created, implying that every second farmer has a tennis court on his farm, that his wife goes to town three, four times a week to have her hair done. and that he buys himself a brand-new motor car each year. When people in positions of responsibility make this kind of accusation and level this kind of criticism against farmers of South Africa, then I tell you that things have already gone too far. It is time we viewed the farmer of South Africa in the correct perspective, as he actually is. For example I tried to ascertain how many tennis courts there were in my own district. People are always telling me that it is a very good district. There are approximately 150 farmers. Do you know how many tennis courts there are in the entire district? There are four, and two of those. I think. were built before the depression. But according to the hon. the Administrator almost every farmer in South Africa has a tennis court. and every year or so he buys himself a new motor car. Where this type of statement is made. the impression is created that it is wrong of the farmer to come and apply to the Government. I dissociate myself completely from these remarks made by the hon. the Administrator. because they are entirely incorrect. What I found very strange was that when he made this speech extensions to the value of R30,000 had been made at Leeuwenhof, according to the newspapers. The reception room, etc., had been made a little bigger. But that of course is one of the difficulties in South Africa to-day. There are too many people working with other people’s money, and too few people working with their own money to be able to have an idea of what the real state of affairs in South Africa is. It is this type of speech that creates the wrong impression, and that is why farmers are hesitant and afraid to come to the Government for assistance because the whole world is, after all, saying that they are rich and prosperous and that all is going well with them. But that is not the situation. If the farmer is in difficulties, whom must he approach for help? He can approach nobody else but the State. If one is a teacher, if one is a public servant, if one works for a business undertaking, then one has some-one to whom one can go, one’s trade union or one’s workers organization, to plead your case for you and to see that your wages are adjusted. But the farmer can only come to the State for help when he is in difficulties. That is why it is essential that we put forward a few suggestions in regard to the way in which we can stabilize the agricultural industry on a short term as well as on a long term basis. In the first place, what should not be done is wait for the report of the commission of inquiry into the agricultural industry to make its appearance. The reason for that is obvious, because the time factor to-day is important. The more time that is wasted in saving the industry, the longer it will take and the more it will cost in future. In the second place it has become necessary for us to single out the agricultural industry for special consideration because no other industry, except perhaps the gold mining industry, has the problems which the agricultural industry has to-day. In the third place, our agricultural credit committees will have to be given immediate instructions to request our farmers to come and discuss their problems with them. Special sittings of these committees may even be necessary.

But they are available at any time; any farmer may apply.

Areas which are severely stricken by drought at the present stage must be declared immediately to be such, so that the necessary assistance may be rendered as quickly as possible. Reports are reaching us daily from areas that forwarded applications of this nature some time ago but do not know where they stand yet; others have received reports that their requests have not been granted. There is an hon. member on this side of the House who has areas in his constituency that applied early in January already that they be declared a drought-stricken area. Those applications have only been granted during the past few days, after the hon. member arrived in Cape Town. In the fourth place, we believe that the Agricultural Credit Board should immediately facilitate its work. Too much information is reaching us of farmers who have made application. Over and above the fact that the Agricultural Credit Board should facilitate its task, it should also be more receptive to requests from farmers. Too much information is reaching us that farmers who have applied for assistance have had their applications refused. We have not been the only ones to voice serious criticism in this respect; criticism against the Agricultural Credit Board was expressed last year at quite a number of agricultural congresses. We also believe that the Land Bank should be called in to help farmers in this respect. What is more, the hon. the Minister of Finance ought, once again, to make an appeal to our commercial banks and other financial institutions to display as much sympathy as possible in this regard to the farmers of South Africa. Credit restrictions on our rural areas in these circumstances must definitely be relaxed. If this is not done the agricultural industry will come to a halt. These we regard as some of the priorities which can be tackled immediately in order to deal with the position.

Mr. Speaker, how about a few long term adjustments in our agricultural industry? In the first place we believe that price adjustments should be made to keep pace with the increase in the cost of production, with proper consideration being taken of the risk factor; this must take place regularly. Sir, nobody will mind producing if he has to pay 10 per cent interest, but then that interest must be brought into account in the price which he obtains for his product. Unless it is brought into account, one cannot produce at the prices which are being obtained to-day. The farmer is also prepared to produce at a cheaper price provided that steps are taken to reduce his production costs. If those things do not happen, there is only one solution and that is that price adjustments should be made in accordance with the increase in production costs. We believe that as far as the long-term policy is concerned, we must revert to the spirit of our Marketing Act which was passed in 1937.

What is that spirit?

The general spirit in which the discussions took place at that time was that the Marketing Act would help the farmer in South Africa to obtain a reasonable wage for his labour plus his production costs.

What was wrong with the mealie price last year?

Ask the mealie farmers whether they are satisfied. Mr. Speaker, I do not even want to ask the mealie farmers; I will simply ask the Mealie Board, because the price which the Mealie Board put forward differed from the price which the Government laid down.

You know very little.

I may not know as much as that hon. member, but the difference between him and me is that I read what is going on and I have a good memory. Ask the members of the Mealie Committee of the South African Agricultural Union whether they are satisfied.

They are satisfied.

I reminded that hon. member last year in this House that some of his National Party friends had resigned from his Party because of the poor prices they had received. He did not deny it …

They were United Party supporters since their young days.

They are also United Party supporters when they grow up. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Newton Park, like other hon. members of the Opposition, levelled a considerable amount of criticism. Sir, when one takes part in an agricultural debate, it is easy to criticize in a time of drought, the most protracted drought South Africa has ever known. But one must test the long-term and the short-term solution offered by the Opposition, against the circumstances and the true facts. To begin with, I want to refer briefly to a few of the hon. member’s statements in order to show that he is a stranger in Jerusalem. Before doing so, however, I want to put it on record quite clearly that in this Part Appropriation debate the hon. member for Queenstown was the first to point out that there were major financial and other problems in the agricultural industry, but the hon. member for Queenstown also pointed out that they had been caused by natural conditions, etc.

I first want to deal with a few suggestions made here by the hon. member. He said in the first place that the Agricultural Credit committees should be given instructions to grant interviews to the farmers. Does he not know that every person who applies to the Agricultural Credit Board and the Department for assistance, is afforded an opportunity of meeting the committee under the chairmanship of a magistrate, and to put his case fully to the committee, and that as many meetings as necessary are called by the magistrate when applications are submitted? This is something which is already being done, but the hon. member asks that it should be done. He made a second suggestion, which is that emergency grazing areas must be declared immediately. Does he not know that any agricultural union or farmers’ association can apply, not only for a magisterial district, but even for a soil conservation district, for that area to be declared an emergency grazing area? Does he not know that when an application is submitted the magistrate calls a meeting and that we immediately obtain the necessary information from Agricultural Technical Services, from Agricultural Economics and Marketing and from the local credit committee, etc.? The matter is given immediate attention. No government can simply declare an area a distress relief area purely at the request of a farmers’ association or a small group of farmers, without that prior investigation. The machinery is there and it is put into operation.

The hon. member made another suggestion; he said that the Agricultural Credit Board must expedite its work. Sir, I do not want to take up the time of the House by quoting figures, but I shall nevertheless quote a few figures in a moment in order to show that the Agricultural Credit Board has done its duty in this regard. However, I want to consider for a moment the question of a long-term policy and the hon. member’s complaint regarding price adjustments. He said that prices must be adapted to production costs, that production costs must be reduced and that we must go back to the Marketing Act. Mr. Speaker, I want to link this to a White Paper on agriculture which was laid on the Table in the House of Assembly. In the preamble to this White Paper I find the following—

Let us now measure this against the recommendations made here by the hon. member for Newton Park. This White Paper was laid upon the Table here by the then Prime Minister, General Smuts, shortly before the United Party went out of office. In this White Paper the policy of the United Party is set out. In the first place the United Party made this admission in this White Paper—

The United Party Government admitted that there was a cumulative impoverishment of the soil. The White Paper continues—

It says the soil has been destroyed. It goes on to say—

The United Party admitted this, but then they went even further—

This is what happened under the policy of the United Party. The hon. member for Newton Park has said that the farmers are so poor that they cannot survive. What did the United Party bring farming to under their policy? Again I quoted from the White Paper—

In the time of the United Party, as a result of their policy, farming did not even provide a reasonable subsistence to the farmers and their labourers. Now the United Party says we have not looked after the farmers. At the same time they admit that land prices have increased steadily since that time, and who has bought the land? Those land barons are farmers who have had to make a living on the land. Land prices can only have increased because the position has changed, and because under this Government farming has offered a livelihood and has yielded interest on the capital invested. Otherwise the farmers could not have paid these prices for land. This is only logical. It is an economic law. But the then Prime Minister went on to say—

Under the United Party régime farming was in a worse state in South Africa than in any of these countries mentioned by the Prime Minister.

There were thousands more farmers on the land at that time.

I am coming to the thousands of farmers in a moment. I am glad the hon. member has mentioned that. General Smuts then went on to say, firstly—

They did not ascertain this first, but they closed the agricultural colleges, and said that they did not need them, as they knew all the answers in regard to agriculture that did not need these scientists. Then he said—

Now the hon. member says that many farmers have left the land, but what does the Prime Minister who was his leader say about these people who had left the land?—

In other words, you must not have these small farms; you must consolidate them into larger units, and this simply results in people having to leave the land, and a means of earning a livelihood is created for them in the industrial world, through the industrial development of South Africa. The Prime Minister of the United Party said that this was the salvation of these small farms, and that it had to be done. But now the Opposition says that this Government is responsible for the depopulation of the rural areas. No, they should go and do their homework. But now I come to the United Party’s most recent policy that South Africa knows of, to the solutions suggested by them, and what are those solutions? The hon. member says that the spirit of the Marketing Act should be observed. The Marketing Act was already on the Statute Book when this White Paper was laid upon the Table. What does the White Paper say about it?—

I say that the United Party said: Here are the Marketing Act and the control boards, but in order to prevent inflation we must have a downward price adjustment. Is this the spirit in which they want us to apply the Marketing Act? There has never been a downward price adjustment under this Government. On the contrary, prices have increased year after year. Is this the long-term policy which the hon. members for Newton Park and Durban (Point) want, a downward price adjustment? We must go and tell the farmers this. This was the last official document of the United Party to be laid upon the Table here. What more does it say?—

Then the hon. member says that land prices have been too high and are dropping now. But his Prime Minister said the Government should reduce the land prices in order to carry out their agricultural policy, in the spirit of the United Party’s interpretation of the Marketing Act. Is this the long-term policy? Must we tell the farmers that this is what the United Party wants?

Let us see what the White Paper says about production costs. The hon. member wants us to take production costs as the criterion, which is in fact being done. But what did the United Party say?—

When one sits on the opposite side it is easy to come forward with a lot of criticism and to say that this or that should be done, and that the spirit of the Marketing Act is not being observed, but then unfortunately one must not have a White Paper such as this on one’s record, a White Paper which says things such as these. This, after all, is the agricultural policy of the United Party. This is the last White Paper issued by the United Party before it went out of office. It was issued when Mr. Strauss was Minister of Agriculture and General Smuts Prime Minister, and it was tabled in this House. Just listen to what the United Party said in it—

The United Party knows nothing but price politics. That is all they know. During the past three or four sessions every agricultural debate was about price politics only. It had nothing to do with the basic economic laws; it had nothing to do with this inalienable soil which was never looked after under their government. I want to show how they make the charge against themselves—

The United Party said that once we had passed through this transitional period of reducing prices and having the farmers leave their small farms, we could have a lower price level, because by doing so we would compel the farmers not to practise wasteful exploitation any more! But surely this is a story different to what the hon. member told us here.

However, I do not want to deal only with the United Party’s last White Paper of 1946 in which they expounded their agricultural policy. I do not want to take only this as a criterion. I want to show this House how inconsistent the United Party is in its policy in regard to agriculture, in the same issue of this one brochure alone, to show you how much notice we must take of these people. In the same pamphlet (No. 1 of 1965) they have a portrait of Sir De Villiers Graaff next to an article about their Information and Research Section, and this is what they say—

But they were the ones to start this process in 1946, to reduce the rural population by Government action, as we have it here black on white. Now it has decreased by 50,000, but then this pamphlet goes on to say that the Bantu population in the rural areas has increased by 1.3 million. On the very next page, however, the United Party complains bitterly. It says—

In other words, on the first page they complain about the rural areas becoming black, and on the second page of the same publication they say: Let it stay black or become even blacker, otherwise we shall have a smaller market for our products. This is how the United Party reasons. Their whole existence is like this. The one contradicts the other, and the Leader contradicts himself on two separate pages of the same publication. It does not help the United Party to come forward with that kind of policy.

I want to proceed. The hon. member said that the agricultural credit boards should function more expeditiously. What are the true facts? They are that from 1st October, 1966, to 31st December, 1967, this House made available the colossal amount of R31,720,000 to finance farmers who need funds, farmers who need production loans and stock-feed loans, or who have to redeem farming debts, or purchase provisions. There is no delay and a lot of outstanding applications. Often some of these applications are delayed as a result of information not being available, because the farmer has not supplied all the information, and then they have to be referred back. The hon. member then mentioned as an example the Cape Province, which is so much larger, and said that the Cape Province was not being looked after. But in the same Speech he levelled the charge that the Government was spending too much and that this was promoting inflation.

I said Van Aswegen said so.

Very well, but you agree with Van Aswegen. Now I want to ask the hon. member: Must the Government not build the Verwoerd Dam to give the Cape this new stimulus, so that one may have proper development there? He says no, Van Aswegen said so and he agrees with Van Aswegen; the Government should spend less capital, but we must also see to it that the Cape Province gets the necessary agricultural assistance. He does not want the water for the Cape Province so soon.

Why did you stop the construction of the Vanderkloof Dam?

It has not been stopped; it has only been delayed. On the one hand he accuses us of spending too much money, but on the other hand he wants all these benefits for the farmers of the Cape Province, No. the hon. members must argue more logically. They must put their case better. Let us put the matter very clearly. The hon. member says the industrial workers and all the others have organizations to submit their representations, but the farmers are afraid of coming to the Government. Is he a stranger then? Does he not know that the farmers are organized into agricultural unions, and that the Government’s door has never yet been closed to the South African Agricultural Union? On the contrary, the old Agricultural Advisory Board, which that Party abolished, and which was constituted by the South African Agricultural Union to advise the Government where necessary, has been reconstituted and is holding its meetings, financed by the Government, to give the necessary advice in regard to agricultural policy. There is no other economic sector in South Africa that has such organized machinery for putting its case to the Government as agriculture has. And yet the hon. member comes here and says that there is no such body. But there are other bodies as well. With regard to soil preservation the Government has its proper boards.

The hon. member mentioned production costs as an item. While I do not want to take up the time of this House unnecessarily by quoting figures, I think it is necessary to consider what progress we have made in the agricultural field and that we put it on record. What is the contribution made by agriculture to domestic production? In 1958 the net income from farming was R276 million as compared with R521.9 million in 1966-’67. In less than ten years its contribution increased to this extent. But let us also see how the value of agriculture has increased. The total value of agriculture in 1948 was only R376.2 million, as against R1,307 million at present.

Why don’t you go back to the time of the rinderpest?

I may say this to the hon. member, that after the next election one will have to go back as far as the time of the rinderpest if one wants to find a United Party supporter. Perhaps this is why it is considered necessary to introduce politics as a history subject—otherwise the people of South Africa will eventually have no idea at all of what a United Party supporter looked like.

That is what you think.

But let me return to the position of agriculture and compare the index of production costs with that of produce prices. In 1947-’48 the index of agricultural production, the gross value, was 95 as compared with 182 in 1958, and 331 in 1956-’67. This is for the main agricultural products. What is the index of production costs as compared to this? In 1947-’48 it was 102, as against 266 in 1966-’67. This means that the indices of agricultural production and production costs have more or less kept pace with each other. The hon. member wants to keep production costs low. Is one way of doing this the way suggested by his former leader, General Smuts, namely that land prices must be forced down by Government action? It should be kept in mind that land prices are the largest single factor in production costs in agriculture. In the White Paper to which I have referred his former leader said that land prices must be forced down by Government action. Does the hon. member want to do this? Is he prepared to tell the farmers this? Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to come here after a terrible and long drought and to say that conditions are bad. Of course, we know that farming is having a hard time, because we know the farmer is suffering as a result of many circumstances to-day. We know that when the farmer is having a hard time, a socioeconomic chain reaction may be set up in the small rural towns so that the rural dealers are also affected. This we know. But to point a finger at this side and to say that the cause of all these things is the neglect on the part of this Government, is wrong. In addition the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants the engineers and officials of the Department to become his oil company’s salesmen. He wants them to become his sellers of plough shares. Does the hon. member not know why I told him that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”? Does the hon. member know that we have an agricultural engineering section where anybody can obtain advice about implements? Does the hon. member not know of the existence of the Bureau of Standards? Any manufacturer can take his product there and if it gets the Bureau’s approval, he can go to his agents and advertisers and boast of the fact that his product carries the stamp of the S.A.B.S., because it is a good recommendation. Does the hon. member expect the extension officers and engineers of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to expose themselves to the accusation that they discriminate in recommending one company in preference to another, that they recommend one manufacturer’s tractor in preference to that of another, or that they want to push a particular kind of plough share at the expense of another, or that they recommend one brand of oil in preference to another, whether it is re-refined oil or not? No, they cannot be expected to do this. The firm whose mouthpiece the hon. member was here, must appoint its own agents to do its agency work. Surely all of us know that our agriculture is the lifeblood of our national existence. It is an extremely important industry. This House must take note of the fact that the hon. member used an opportunity such as this to try and recruit oil salesmen across the floor of this House. [Interjections.] And dirty oil at that, as the hon. member over there says. As I said, this Department is one providing information, with its engineering section and all, and we shall give all scientific advice possible to any farmer who wants it. The research bodies will also provide the necessary advice. But the Department will not, as the hon. member expects it to do, act as sales agent for the products mentioned by him or any other product in South Africa. We may not and we cannot do this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture has complained here because this side of the House drew attention in the past to the white depopulation of the platteland. Instead of objecting to that, he should listen to some of the hon. members on his own side, amongst others the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, who drew attention in this House last session to the disastrous effect on the small businessman and on the economy of the country areas because of the white depopulation of the platteland which apparently the Deputy Minister just regards as a natural economic process. At the same time our platteland is getting blacker and blacker because of the increasing number of Bantu being employed on the platteland. This is a Government whose policy is shot full of inconsistencies. There sits the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education who last year told us his Government was not prepared to train Bantu for use on our white farms. But according to the issue of Bantu which I have before me, the department’s education journal, he is busy training non-Europeans for use, to quote from this publication, “as long-term employees” on the Railways. So one Government Department is prepared to train them for use on the Railways but that department is not prepared to train them for use in agriculture.

What does this Government want? They say they do not want these people to be employed in the so-called white areas of our country, that they must go back to their homelands. But here we have a method whereby, if we train these people and as a result are able to mechanize more efficiently, we could employ less of them. But the Government, in its blindness, refuses to train them.

We have at least made some progress since last year, because although the Deputy Minister in an effort to hide the absence of the Government’s agricultural policy, went back on a long excursion into history, he did at least make one admission, namely that things were not going well with the agricultural industry. What a change from his attitude last year when he and other hon. members on that side got up here and said everything with our agriculture, we just little problems because of the and so on. To-day he has trotted oui tne same old excuse—the drought again. Eat at he does admit all is not well with and he can hardly fail to admit item the face of the figures given by the Director of the S.A.A.U. this morning regarding the increased load of debt which the South African farmer has to bear to-day. It is certainly an understatement to say that all is not well, because not only do we have natural phenomena such as droughts to contend with; we have Government-imposed phenomena as well. We have lots of them, but I will refer merely to one or two.

Because of the credit squeeze many farmers have to pay an interest rate of 10 per cent. The squeeze was supposed to counter inflation, but it is hitting not the big businessman but the small businessman, whether he be in the town or whether he be a farmer. If there ever was a section of the community which has had lower profit margins in the past and which has not contributed to the inflationary situation, then it is the agricultural community. On top of this we have the effects of the devaluation.

I do not want to deal with those matters at this juncture; perhaps I will have time to do so later.

The hon. the Deputy Minister seemed to take a rather derisive view of what the hon. member for Newton Park had to say about production costs. He talked about basic economic principles. If there is one basic economic principle it is this: If an industry, such as the agricultural industry, which has to perform an essential service in the country, namely to feed our ever-growing population at prices which the population can afford to pay and at the same time be profitable, then the production costs of that industry must be kept down. That is the basic economic principle. It is no good that Deputy Minister going round the country, as he has done in the past, lecturing the farmers about greater efficiency in farming. I notice that in this regard he is being joined by other hon. members on that side, including yesterday the hon. member for Paarl, who again came with this story of efficiency. I am sorry the hon. member for Paarl is not here because I want to say to him I would like him to come and tell the pineapple producers in my area who suddenly find their selling cut by about R2 per ton by the canne they must increase their efficiency in a period to overcome that setback. In a case such as this, where increasing consumer resistance is encountered, I say production costs are extremely important; in fact they are all important. This Government has not merely failed to keep down production costs, but in many instances it has by its own actions forced up the production costs of the primary producer. Need I refer again to the action of the hon. the Minister of Transport two years ago when he increased a large number of rail referred already to the refusal of the of Bantu Administration to train Bantu so that we can have more efficient labour.

I refuse to train them in white areas. I have told you so, and I still refuse to train them.

I know that, and the Deputy Minister will no doubt go on refusing he has added the last straw on to the back of the unfortunate camel, which is South African agriculture. Apart from anything else, though, we as farmers in this country will find it exceedingly difficult to keep down our production costs unless the Government aids us with efficient and adequately staffed technical services. There has been a failure to do the research needed, not necessarily because of a lack of will to do the research needed, but because there has been a chronic shortage of technical staff in the Department of Agriculture. It is no exaggeration to say that our soil conservation scheme to-day is becoming bogged down because of lack of staff. I am not going to deal with the soil conservation side this afternoon. Another one of my colleagues will deal with it. But it remains a fact that we still have far too few extension officers, and those that we do have are over-burdened with a great amount of paper work. The hon. the Deputy Minister went back 20 years, so I also want to go back 20 years. For 20 years we have heard the same thing from this Government: “We are training people and we hope that next year there will be an improvement.” Mr. Speaker, next year there still is not any improvement at all and. in fact, the position in many respects is getting worse.

I am not going to apportion blame, although that Deputy Minister should take a good share of the blame because he has been the Deputy Minister of the department over the last year or two, but this is a matter that goes a long way. [Interjection.] It goes back to before the time of the predecessor of the present Minister. who has just taken over. He hardly had time to put matters right. I lay the blame on the hon. gentleman who is the present Minister of the Interior.

I want to deal particularly with one aspect of our technical services, namely the Government failure to provide adequate veterinary I have dealt with this on former in this House, but I make no excuse for dealing with it again, because in this one respect alone I would like to take a leaf out of the book of the hon. the Minister of Health. The other day, during the No-Confidence debate, he said “When you see that something is wrong”—he, of course, was referring to the American Field Service—“you must go on and on until that is put right”. I do not often agree with the hon. the Minister of Health, but I certainly intend to follow his example as far as persistence in this veterinary field is concerned. There is a shortage right throughout the whole division of veterinary services in the division of veterinary field services and in our research institution at Onder-stepoort. What is more, these shortages are getting progressively worse. They are not getting better. There is a shortage even in the lowest grades. There is the shortage of stock inspectors, for example. In reply to a question which I put to the Minister in August last year, he said that there were some 41 vacancies as far as stock inspectors are concerned. But that is not the whole story. We have a stock inspector in our area. We hardly ever see him because he is on the borders of the country somewhere fighting a foot-and-mouth outbreak, or he is down here in the Western Province fighting an outbreak of Newcastle disease. It is perfectly right that they should be posted to those areas. But it is facts like these which show that, after 20 years of this Government, even at that low level they have not got sufficient stock inspectors to carry out the work and the policy of the department properly. There is always a shortage of veterinary surgeons. In my local area there are supposed to be two Government veterinarians, but, as soon as the second one is appointed, the first one either resigns or he is removed to another post, simply because that other post is also vacant. Replies to questions which we receive from hon. Ministers do not always tell the full story. When I asked in August of 1966 what the establishment of veterinarians in veterinary field services was, I was told that it was 96 and that there were only four vacancies. And yet we have this chronic position where there always seems to be vacancies in these posts. Under this Government after 20 years we have become used to firstly, an overall shortage of veterinarians. They do not train enough of them. Secondly, we have become used to an intensified shortage in the country areas, because of their refusal to use part-time veterinary surgeons as we have suggested. Above all, we have become used to a chronic shortage of veterinarians in the Government services as a whole. How has the position not altered? If the hon. the Minister wants to go back in history, I go back with him. I go back to 1937. How has the position not altered since 1937 when 21 per cent of the veterinarians in our country were in private practice and 71 per cent were in State practice! Now it is just the opposite. I base my figures on that same reply that I was given by the hon. the Minister in 1966: 62 per cent of our practitioners to-day are private practitioners and only 27 per cent are in State practice.

We train them.

You train them, yes. But they are not going into the Government service, and in one particular instance I am going to tell this hon. Deputy Minister why they are not going into the Government service.

They serve in Animal Husbandry.

Quite right, but there are not enough of them due to the failure of the Government to train them in sufficient numbers. We have told this Government consistently that what is needed, is a second veterinary faculty. As consistently they have refused. We have advanced good reasons for this. Firstly, the present faculty tends to draw its students mainly from one province, very naturally nearby; that having only one faculty causes a certain “in-breeding” in veterinary thought, because there is no competition on a research basis as there will be between two faculties. What is more, it would alleviate … [Interjection.] Never mind; just listen to me. Not merely would a second veterinary faculty not worsen the staff shortage, but it would actually alleviate the staff shortage, because scientists tend to be drawn to areas where there are problems and where there are new opportunities. They would have the opportunity for advancement and promotion which they do not get at the present time. Every time I have raised this question of the second faculty, I have been supported by hon. members on that side of the House who have hastened to put forward the claims of their own particular areas, whether it happens to be the Free State, the Western Province, or anywhere else. I wonder what the reaction of those hon. members would be to the suggestion that was put forward not so long ago by Dr. Ashton Tarr, the President of the South African Veterinary Medical Association, when he addressed the Natal branch of the Association on the 5th July of last year, namely that what was needed in this country was a Bantu veterinary faculty “equal in status to any in the world”. We have been told by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration that when it comes to the implementation of the Bantustan plan, “dit maak nie saak wat dit kos nie”. That is what he said to us the other day. One wonders what the reaction will be from hon. members on that side of the House if the Government were to take the advice of Dr. Ashton Tarr and were to establish a veterinary faculty for Bantu in pursuit, among other things, of the Bantustan plan; prior to establishing a second faculty in the white areas.

In the white area?

I say prior to establishing another white faculty in the white area.

One wonders what their reaction is going to be. The Minister’s reply has always been “there is no need for a second faculty, because we can expand the teaching further at Onderstepoort”. They can increase the intake, and therefore they can increase the output. But, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there is any truth at all at the moment in that assertion, in view of what has been going on at Onderstepoort over the last 2½ years. I say that in view of the steady stream of resignations among senior staff at Onderstepoort it is a very doubtful proposition indeed, whether Onderstepoort can be expanded further as a teaching institution in the very near future. I am going so far as to say that, if this spate of resignations is allowed to continue, not merely will the research programme at Onderstepoort break down completely, but the teaching of students, our future veterinarians, is also going to be gravely affected.

Let me add at once that I have the highest regard for Onderstepoort as an institution, which has achieved world renown, and justly so, because of the outstanding work done there. Let me also add that I, in my own personal farming operations, have been greatly helped by special work that has been done by Onderstepoort on my behalf to solve certain technical veterinary problems. But it is clear that there is something very wrong at that research institute. Veterinarians have been leaving there in a steady stream for a variety of reasons. I know of one veterinarian who left there after five years’ service at Onderstepoort, plus another four years’ service elsewhere. He left because he had been superseded as the new head of his department by a man who had 2½ years of service. Hon. members may say that that is just an isolated case and that the man perhaps had a grievance and that one swallow does not make a summer. But there are an awful lot of swallows that have been winging away from Onderstepoort over the last 2 to 2½ years. If one asks the question, as I did of the hon. the Minister in 1966, one gets a reply in figures which, on the face of it, appear quite encouraging. At that time I was given a reply that the establishment there consisted of 71 veterinarians with three vacancies. But that sort of figure does not give the true picture at all. What is happening is that experienced men who are approaching probably their most productive age, namely 30 to 35 years, have been resigning at Onderstepoort and have been replaced by young inexperienced men who qualified only a short while before. My information may not be correct, and the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell me so, but my information is that these men last had any noteworthy general salary increase in January, 1966.

Then tell your party not to cry out that we are spending too much.

I shall come to that specious argument of the Deputy Minister a little bit later on. Last year—on the 30th January to be precise—43 of the establishment of 71, that is more than half of the veterinarians at Onderstepoort, wrote a letter to the Chief of Onderstepoort for transmission to the Secretary for Agriculture. I think that is the normal sort of procedure laid down in a department. They followed the normal procedure for making representation and for airing their complaints. They asked for higher salaries and they asked for better conditions of service. That was on the 1st January, 1967. I understand that this letter has been acknowledged. We are now in February, 1968, but nothing has been done about any noteworthy improvement in their salaries. They have had no satisfaction. There was a Press leakage about this some six months later in the Sondagstem of the 2nd July, 1967. I have that Press report here. It contained minor inaccuracies. I am therefore not going to rely on this Press report, because I have a photostated copy of the memorandum which was forwarded by these veterinarians. They were experienced men because, excluding four of them who were recent graduates, the other 39 had an average of 12.7 years experience, of which 7.8 years was State experience—with the veterinary services in other words—and 4.9 years was private practise or other experience. They were people who had published scientific publications. The average number of scientific publications for each man was 11.4. 24 of these 43 men submitted to these who drew up the memorandum, a monthly expense account. Let me say, in case the Deputy Minister starts querying these figures, that they made no allowance on this expense account for holidays. Therefore, on the income side, they did not include their holiday bonuses.

The salary figures that I am quoting are those of their average basic salary. These people receive on an average a monthly salary of a little over R327. Their expenses are R454 a month according to these calculations. In other words, those men are working on a monthly deficit of R127. Converted to an annual figure, they are working at a deficit of R1,531 per year. Sir, is it any wonder that they write in this memorandum: “Carrying on in this way is leading rapidly to bankruptcy, and this at the height of our productive lives.” They stated that they had to meet this deficit in one or more of the following ways: Firstly, they had to do part-time work inside and/or outside the Public Service—and doing part-time work outside the Public Service is against the regulations. Secondly, they had to send their wives out to work to the detriment of their homes and families. Thirdly, they had to draw on capital accumulated in previous employment or through inheritance. Fourthly, they had to expend a great deal of time in contriving means of overcoming financial difficulties to the serious detriment of the peace of mind essential for the realization of maximum potential. Fifthly, they had to reduce further their already reduced standard of living. In this connection, in regard to reduced living standards, they point out very rightly that between January, 1963, and January, 1966, the buying power of the rand under this Government dropped by 8.7 per cent. During 1966 the buying power of the rand dropped by another 4.9 per cent. If we look at the Short-Term Economic Indicators which we, as members of this House, receive every so often—I have the December, 1967, issue here—we see that the consumer price-index for all items between October, 1966, and October, 1967, increased from 119.3 to 122. There has therefore been a further rise since these people compiled those figures. As a result of this there has been a steady stream of resignations from Onderstepoort, mostly in the 30 to 35 age-group. In the 24 months prior to the submission of this memorandum, namely from January, 1965, to January, 1967, 17 veterinarians resigned from Onderstepoort. As they said in their memorandum, most of the 17 veterinarians who resigned in the past 24 months have left reluctantly, and have left for financial reasons. It is damaging enough that veterinarians should leave our Government service. It is even worse when they are research workers at an institute of international reknown, as is the case with Onderstepoort. These 17 resignations amount to over 71 per cent of the State veterinarians who were engaged in full-time research at Onderstepoort. According to this Press report, which may be inaccurate in this regard, 18 of them are also engaged as lecturers. But, Sir, that was not the end of it. Since this memorandum was submitted, namely on 1st February, 1967, just about a year ago, another 12 have left. I can tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that there are another four or five who are likely to go. This is not the only cause for complaint by these people. I have already mentioned how misleading figures can be in reply to questions regarding staff shortages. When I asked about the establishment at Onderstepoort in 1966, I was told that the establishment in regard to technical assistants numbered 101, with only two vacancies. That sounds fine, but what do the veterinarians say about technical assistants? They say: “The lack of trained or qualified technical assistants for veterinarians at Onderstepoort is responsible for considerable waste of professional time, energy and productivity, and largely nullifies the privilege of working there.” They go on to say that the improvement of technicians’ salaries and service conditions would ensure the continued service of trained staff. It is quite clear that all is not well in regard to technicians as well.

Sir, I could compare the salaries paid to Onderstepoort veterinarians with the salaries received by veterinarians in private practice but I do not think that is necessary; my time is running out. I merely want to say that they are in an even worse position than some people in other Government departments. If the Minister wants confirmation of that, we can compare the salary paid to a medical officer in the Department of Health with the salaries paid to these men at Onderstepoort. Whereas the medical officer starts at R4.200, an Onderstepoort man starts with R3,000. The medical officer goes up to R6,000, the Onderstepoort man up to R5,100. They state further in their memorandum that hitherto not one single veterinarian has reached that last figure.

There were other complaints made by these people. They make a comparison between the way in which the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research treat their people when they want to go overseas on study leave, with the aid of a bursary or grant from the Department, and the way in which they are treated in the Department of the hon. the Deputy Minister. If a man working with the C.S.I.R. breaks his contract he has to repay the money received but he gets a pro rata reduction for services rendered after returning to the service, so the longer he stays in the service the greater the reduction he gets, and this encourages him to stay in the service as long as possible. But a veterinarian who breaks his contract with the Deputy Minister’s Department has to repay the whole of the grant or bursary received by him and, what is more, over and above that, they charge him 10 per cent on the money from the date on which he received it from the Department. Is it any wonder that these people say, with full justification, that this is an exorbitant rate and that they feel that the conditions laid down by the department contract are totally unreasonable? [Time expired.]

At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Durban (Point) quoted from this morning’s Die Burger. The hon. the Deputy Minister asked him to read the entire report, but he deliberately left out one section which was of great importance. What Mr. Cilliers of the agricultural union said was this (translation)—

The following section reads as follows—

Surely the Government cannot help it if a farmer who takes the risk factor into account, purchases fertilizer and seed, and then there are no rains. The entire argument of the hon. member for Durban (Point) falls away if one reads the report correctly. He conducted an agricultural debate here, but in reality I want to call it the dirty oil speech. He tried to cheapen the entire debate here by attempting in a cheap way to advertise that oil agency.

You ought to know that that is untrue.

In any case, the hon. member for Newton Park rose to speak after him. I like him; he is not a bad sort. We are agreed on many matters. He stated that the prices of agricultural products should be such that farmers should be able to supp., their own personal auxiliary savings funds, and in the next sentence he spoke about the depopulation of the rural areas. In other words, he was advocating such high agricultural product prices that the depopulation must in fact be accelerated. We thrashed this matter out here last year and I thought that we had convinced him. When wool prices shot up, the Karroo was depopulated by approximately 20 per cent. What would happen if you gave a farmer one rand per bag for a mealie crop of 50,000 bags? He would buy out four farmers who produced 5,000 each. Surely that is an unrealistic argument. When he discusses their burden of interest, that hon. member must ask himself whether those farmers did not pay too much for their land. There was a time when our farmers definitely paid too much for the land they purchased.

Do you think the financial institutions who made that money available to the farmers were as stupid as the farmers to pay too much for land?

This state of affairs originated as a result of the prevailing circumstances.

I come next to the speech made by the hon. member for Albany. He began by saying that pineapple prices had decreased by R2 per ton this year, and that the entire crop was being absorbed by the canning industry. He then continued, and had a lot to say about research. Mr. Speaker, I spoke last year about the research station at Bathurst, which is a pineapple producing area. Alterations were made, and fewer than 20 farmers visited that research station during the year. The hon. member said, “You reduce the prices by R2 per ton, and then you expect the farmer to be more efficient”. Is the hon. member aware that in his part of the world there are pineapple farmers who doubled their crops in two years by simply doing one thing they had seen at the research station, i.e. spraying with hormones? Is he aware of that. There are very few farmers who are prepared to spray with hormones at the moment; they do not even know about that. Is the hon. member aware that canners in this country have already lost as much as R600,000 in one year because they canned pineapples? I would be glad if the Eastern Province farmers would realize that the pineapple industry is in a deplorable state. I see very little hope for the pineapple industry. There are people who are considering closing down their canning factories in the Eastern Province. We must compete with Hawaii, which produces an entirely different type of pineapple, and some other countries which are able to deliver a much better pineapple to South Africa, as a result of their location.

The hon. member also referred to veterinary surgeons. I cannot say much about that, for to my regret I had to agree with him in some respects. I know however, that the matter is receiving a great deal of attention. The hon. member must remember that the veterinary surgeons in our country are being lured away by the private sector. As far as agricultural extension officers are concerned, it is simply impossible for the State to compete with the fertilizer companies and the private industrialists. Even if the State were to increase the salary to R6,000 the private sector would pay them a little more, and our entire economy would be thrown into confusion, so that it would eventually resemble the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, there are difficulties but the Opposition does not want to admit that our country’s economy is a sound one, and that our finances are on a sound basis. They are now dragging agriculture into this debate. Last year they complained about surpluses and the year before that about the drought. This year they are again complaining about the drought. They have a motion on the Order Paper in which they state that the Government is doing nothing for industries which have to sell their products in a devalued market. They are asking us to place the agricultural industry on a long-term basis, and then the hon. member for Newton Park states that his definition of a long-term policy is simply realistic prices for agricultural produce. Is that a solution? When the Opposition has such derogatory remarks to make about agriculture, they forget that there has been an explosion in agriculture here during these last 20 years, greater than in any other part of the world. Is the hon. member for Newton Park aware of the fact that South Africa covers 7 per cent of the surface area of Africa, and that we have 8 per cent of the population of Africa, White and Black, in South Africa, and that we produce 22 per cent of the foodstuffs produced in Africa?

That is thanks to the farmers; not the Government.

The hon. member is now saying that it is thanks to the farmers. Farmers who, according to the Opposition, are obtaining no instruction and no State assistance. Is that hon. member aware of what the State loans to agricultural co-operatives, and the other forms of assistance rendered by the State to farmers? Sir, there are problems regarding surpluses. I thought the United Party would elaborate far more on that. They said the farmer must be helped. What farmer must be helped, and how must he be helped? The wool farmer has to-day found himself in difficulties—I do not deny it—and the mealie farmer is also in difficulties.

You people said just now that they were satisfied.

The citrus farmer is in difficulties; the fruit farmer is in difficulties; the dairy farmer is in difficulties; the pineapple farmer is in difficulties; the oil seed farmer is in difficulties; but not all farmers are in difficulties. The hon. member for Newton Park said to-day that the farmers were dissatisfied at last year’s mealie price, a mealie price which was determined last year when the crop was estimated at 82 million bags, whereas the ultimate crop was 109 million bags. The mealie crop is now being exported at a loss of 63 cents per bag, and then the hon. member states that the farmers were dissatisfied with last year’s mealie price!

Were they satisfied at that time?

Sir, we cannot go on asking for higher prices. A strange pattern is developing in our country. I concede that the rural areas are being depopulated at the rate of as much as 2,000 per year, and that the population of the rural areas is going to continue diminishing steadily, but is that such an unhealthy state of affairs? Why must we in this country pull up short against ordinary economic rules and refuse to accept them? I have interesting figures here from an agricultural co-operative which takes in mealies only. From 1964 to 1967 the total number of white producers in this co-operative has diminished from 588 to 456. This change of 132 in the number of producers has occurred principally in the group producing less than 1,000 bags of mealies. In 1964-’65 405 producers in this group delivered 13 per cent of the crop, as against 251 who, in 1967-’68, were responsible for only 5 per cent of the total crop. The number of producers in the group 1,000 to 5.0 bags, remained constant at plus-minus 145, and was responsible during the past year for only 22 per cent of the crop as against 34 per cent the previous season. The number of producers in the group 5,000 bags and more has increased from 41 in 1964-’65, with 53 per cent of the total crop, to 60, with 73 per cent of the total crop. Included in this group the number of producers delivering 30,0 bags and more increased from four to ten with an increase in their contribution to the total crop of this co-operative from 8 per cent to 37 per cent. If one were suddenly to increase the price of an agricultural product now, as that hon. member is suggesting, what would happen? This co-operative would ultimately be controlled by 20 farmers and the rest would be a mere cipher; of that I am very certain.

Mr. Speaker, there are certain other points I should like to mention. When we discuss this problem. I should just like to point out that we on this side are not closing our eves to the higher costs which we are experiencing in agriculture. The Citrus Board and the Zebediela Estates, to which the hon. member for Potgietersrus referred, furnished us with these figures: In 1950 the transportation charges on a half case or tray of oranges was 4.09 cents, and in 1965 it was 7.32 cents. Export charges such as pre-refrigeration etc., were fixed at 15 cents, and in 1965 they were 13.74 cents. Levies, administration, etc., amounted to 2.35 cents, and in 1965 to 5.35 cents. Freight charges increased from 25.9 cents in 1950 to 56.6 cents in 1965. Overseas charges, distribution, sales and advertising were 11.45 cents, and in 1965 they were 32.26 cents. The total increase in the 15 years from 1950 to 1965 was from 50.02 cents to 115.35 cents. Do you know what is also interesting? In 1950 a case of oranges sold at 24 shillings in London, and last year the average price for navels was 24 shillings. Now I want to prove my statement. In spite of this people are planting citrus trees. This is the case throughout the world and not only in South Africa. The profit margin has become less. The competition is greater and there is only one solution. The farmer to-day must specialize and if he tackles something, he must do it well and not half-heartedly. Then one still finds that people are making a profit under these circumstances. I held a meeting and discussed the prices of agricultural products and then the farmers discuss income tax. The hon. member for Newton Park has said that he has not come across this, but I have had the experience that the efficient man states that he is paying too much in tax. If we consider these things, I ask myself whether the United Party wants to introduce a quota system. Do they want to peg the farmers down? This Government has never been prepared to say to a farmer: We are depriving you of your freedom: you can only produce so much. In their time Mr. Strauss introduced a system under which one could only deliver 1,000 bags of mealies at a certain price and for the rest there was a different price. That happened in the democratic period when the United Party was in power. We are not prepared to introduce a thing like that.

Mr. Speaker, should we really feel concerned about surpluses? Is it not a temporary phenomenon? I feel that to have this argument this year, and have another argument next year, after good rains, does not make for stability. In 18 years’ time our population increase will see to it that there are no surpluses. In the year 1986 there will be no need for us to export any agricultural produce; we will absorb it all ourselves. That shows you what the population increase is like. But, with the right procedures, we are going to produce even more in the country. It is a good source of foreign currency for us. The older countries are reaching saturation point. Where are they going to get foodstuffs from? From a young dynamic country under a National Party Government such as this one.

Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other members have referred to the idea that nothing is being done for the fruit farmer on a devalued market, I want to confine my attention just for a moment to the canning industry in our country, and I want to refer the hon. members who maintained that the Government was doing nothing to what was stated in the Financial Gazette last week.

Somebody stated here that Australia subsidized its farmers and I challenge anybody to show me in what way Australia is subsidizing its farmers. It is merely a great bluff to give rise to the idea here that the Government is ignoring the farmer.

Just the canners.

We got in touch with Australia, and they said the following—

I should like to tell you what is happening at present on the overseas market, and then you will be surprised when I tell you that to my mind the Government must not pay much need to this story that the canner should be subsidized to such a tremendous extent. Before devaluation the British market was dead; no business was being carried on. It is impossible to get more than 19s. per dozen 2 lb. tin peaches. Last week it was sold for 22s. Deduct 14.3 per cent for devaluation and see where you stand. We on this side are responsible people. You know as well as we do that devaluation in England has had a stimulating effect on the market; where it was dead before, it is now lively. One is getting the stuff sold. If they want to keep on talking about State aid in that amendment of theirs, then I am asking hon. members to remember that there are some canners who, in their contract, when they stipulated the prices, stated that they wanted to be paid in rands and cents and not in sterling, but not all of them did this. There are other canners who took out insurance at Lloyds against devaluation. Should they be compensated now, or not? How are you going to work out, to my satisfaction, what compensation should be paid while we are still canning the goods? Now they want their money, but they still do not know what they are going to sell their goods for.

But there is one matter which I should perhaps mention, and that is that we in the canning industry in this country must also be efficient. If the farmer must be efficient, the canning industry must also be efficient. The canning industry in this country is quite overcrowded. Australia, which undertakes a tremendous amount of canning, has five canning companies, and one for pineapples. In South Africa we have 23, of which only nine have factories, and in the Western Province there are a dozen canning factories. It is wrong to keep the position going artificially. Inevitably some of them will have to disappear. I am sorry to say this, because I am not unsympathetic towards the industry. The industry is close to my heart, but it has great problems.

There is another matter. It is easy to ask for help, but the canner has concentrated on the British market, and he has neglected the European market. This is another legacy from our Commonwealth ties. I am not denying that we were given preferences in England, but at present there are certain consignments which were sold in Western Europe at 24s. 9d. as against 23s. in England. That proves that we must not simply stare ourselves blind at the British market. If we become that pessimistic, we must remember that it is not only South Africa which is suffering disasters, and is going through what we are going through at present, where our agriculturalists are on their knees. It is happening in America as well, and that is also of help to us. America offered 4.5 million cases of peaches in Europe last year, and this year it was unable to offer even 3 million. But now we are already asking for State assistance, whereas we do not even know yet what is going on. In America they can 30 million cartons of peaches per year; this year they are only canning 23 million. We have never yet experienced a disaster which has struck us so heavily that such a large percentage of the crop has to go to waste. We must also remember that we have this difficulty, that in the canning industry one finishes canning one’s commodity, and then goes and looks for a market. One does not know what one is going to find. Just try making a long-term price policy, as the hon. member for Newton Park wants! The peach harvest in the Western Province is 112,000 tons this year. Just think in what a fine country we are living where we are able to pack 112,000 tons of peaches in tins, and more than 80 per cent of that crop is going to be sold overseas. In that case we must protect this industry and not merely insist, without thinking, that this, that or the other be done.

I conclude. I concede that the farmers must be protected. It has always been the policy of this Government to protect the farmers. Problems have arisen all along the way. There are farmers who have found themselves in difficulties with rates of interest, land prices and labour problems. But each of these matters is receiving attention. We are waiting for the commission of inquiry. I have heard that the Cabinet has already discussed the drought. It is a serious matter. We know that if it is possible to lend assistance, that assistance will be given. But it is unrealistic simply to ask for various things. Do you know what would happen in the long run if those subsidies were allowed to accumulate as the United Party is asking? When the Estimates are discussed they will ask why the taxes have been increased. These United Party people are a strange race. We realize one thing in agriculture, and it is the duty of every person to promote this: We must not merely ask for subsidies; we must ask for specialized efficiency. This explosion which has taken place during the last 20 years, will double in the next 20 years under the National Party régime.

I have listened with great interest to the speech just made by the hon. member for Standerton. He has played on the phrase saying that South Africa’s economy is very sound. We are not disputing this, but this is an old phrase which we have heard over the years, particularly at election times. At Nationalist political meetings one often hears the old saying: “Ons land is ekonomies gesond,” and then there is a “Hoor, hoor” and every farmer goes home happy, thinking that everything is rosy in the garden. The hon. member has had to defend his Government and his party and he has given us a lot of figures this afternoon relating to the crisis in which the farmers find themselves to-day, but these figures convey absolutely nothing to us. And make no mistake about it, the agricultural industry is facing a serious crisis I do not think anyone in this House will deny this. These figures convey absolutely nothing to us here this afternoon.

Before I pass on to the points I want to make, I wish to point out, in defence of the hon. member for Durban (Point), and against the accusation by the hon. member for Standerton, that my colleague has absolutely no interests in any product or any company in whose interests he made a plea here this afternoon. I understood the hon. member for Standerton to accuse the hon. member for Durban (Point) of trying to sell or advertise certain products and that he was in fact a director of or had interests in certain companies. I know that not to be the case. Therefore I think it is unfair of the hon. member, in trying to throw a smokescreen over the failures of his Government, falsely to accuse the hon. member for Durban (Point), as he in fact did.

If we want our agricultural industry to be based on a sound footing then it is quite clear that we in South Africa will have to think again. I wish to touch very briefly on certain matters relating to agriculture in the Eastern Cape, because I think the problems which we have there are the same problems facing agriculture in the Western Cape. The only difference being that the problems are reversed. First of all I wish to say something about the Native townships in the Eastern Cape, particularly on the borders of the Bantustan, in the Ciskei area. I wish to mention a township which has been held up by this Government as a showpiece. Tourists are taken to this township, namely Mdantsane, in the East London area. Ultimately when Mdantsane is completed, it will house 120,000 Natives. It is alleged that at the present time this township houses 35,000 Natives, but there are at least 70,0 Natives in the new Mdantsane township, double the number supposed to be there. No one knows just how many Natives there are in the township. The nearest ascertainable figure is 70,000. When we have over-crowding in the townships in the Eastern Cape, something which is found all over the Eastern Cape, not only in Mdantsane, but all along the borders and in the Ciskei, we find dagga trading is prolific and stock theft common. These are problems facing farmers in the area. The Native villages are, as I say, becoming bigger and bigger, and farmers find it impossible to run sheep and even cattle on farms bordering the Native townships and reserves. Last year I mentioned the problems facing farmers there; I referred to the active stock thieving going on, and I do not want to repeat what I said here then, it can be seen in Hansard. What is worrying us, and I am thinking of the Agricultural Unions, the meetings which I attend regularly where farmers voice their problems and reveal their anxieties, is that the ultimate non-European population in the Eastern Cape will flood us out completely once the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has got going with his policy of repatriation. At one of the Agricultural Union meetings it was said that—

It is all very well for the Minister to come to the Eastern Cape and tell us what they are doing, and what they propose doing. But it is wrong to virtually dump people in that area without employment facilities for them. There are many thousands of jobless Natives roaming around with absolutely nothing to do. and these people are the natural increase of the domiciled Bantu inhabitants. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has apparently not really started with his policy of repatriation yet. What will happen some day when he really implements his policy, heaven alone knows. In November of last year the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education visited Humansdorp, which is more or less in that area, and according to a newspaper report he said the following—

I do not know of one yet. The Deputy Minister went on and said—

This is what they proposed doing, and in fact they suggest they are doing. This is what the Commissioner-General of the Xhosa National Unit, Mr. Hans Abraham, said, according to a newspaper report—

Now who am I to believe? The one man says this and the other one says that, and in fact nothing at all is being done. The Deputy Minister’s first great date was 1978, and now we hear him speaking of later dates and he has even mentioned 1998. It is the same old story of: “This year, next year, some time, never.” Apparently anyone’s guess is good enough.

I want to mention too something concerning this showpiece, the township of Mdantsane, a town of which we in that area are justly proud, and which we regard as a great achievement on the part of the municipality of East London. Now we are worried because the development of the township has been cut by more than 50 per cent, for the past year. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member for Heilbron that he may not make any remarks from a Minister’s bench. The hon. member may proceed.

The Government has cut expenditure on Mdantsane township by R1 million, and in doing so the estimated date of completion of the township has now been set back 14 years. This is because of inflation, but nevertheless the date is being pushed back again. In the meanwhile, we are already an over-populated area. I do not believe this Government will ever really get going with the repatriation of the Natives from the Western Cape to the Eastern Cape. It is just all eyewash and a delusion, in fact it is an illusion. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has so much to say about moving the Natives to the Eastern Cape, when does he suggest the Government will move the Coloureds back to the Western Cape? Many Coloureds in that area have come to me, wanting to know when are they going to be moved to the Western Cape because they have no jobs. They also want to know whether their removal expenses will be paid for them. These are question I would like answered because I must go back and tell these people. Many jobless Coloured people are walking around in that area now, and they are very dissatisfied. Animosity is building up between the black man and the Coloured man in the border area, through lack of work, fanned on by mischief-makers. This is a very serious problem facing us.

I now want to deal with another problem which has been mentioned here, and that is the technical services rendered to the agricultural industry. As hon. members know, 2,400 farmers leave or disappear from the land each year, and these numbers increase as time goes on. At the moment we have in the whole of South Africa one extension officer for every 750 farmers, whilst the figures for Rhodesia, just over the Limpopo River, are one extension officer for every 80 farmers. This is a very big difference. I believe we have now reached the stage where we must expand on our Technical Services if we want to save ourselves, particularly in times of drought which occur so frequently in this country. We have to encourage young men to join the agricultural services. I include stock inspectors, soil conservation officers, veterinary officers, etc. I have discussed this matter with these people, and they are worried because of the many young people leaving the services. I have asked them why so many of our men are leaving the services, and they reply, “It is lack of good pay, we are not being paid enough”. I asked them what they suggest could be done because at the present time they could not be paid more. Although I agree that increased pay in the long run does not increase inflation, it is very difficult to say, “All right, we will pay you more”. They suggest, and I believe it is a good suggestion, that while they realize they cannot expect higher salaries at this stage, they do expect the Government to provide them with housing at a lower rate of interest. At the moment when an extension officer or any other officer in the services, be he a stock inspector or a soil conservation officer or a veterinary surgeon, wants to buy a house, he has to apply for, and obtain permission to buy a house. Then he buys it through a building society which costs him per cent bond interest. They find it almost impossible to pay this high interest rate because of the present high cost of living. If this interest could be reduced to say 4½ per cent or 5 per cent, we would encourage many more young men to join the agricultural technical services instead of forcing them to leave the services. I am now giving a secret away. So often hon. members on that side ask this side, “What do you suggest?” This is my suggestion. This Government can have it for nothing. Reduce these interest rates. I believe it is a very good suggestion.

So much has been said during this debate about inflation, and quite rightly too. apparently everyone here is worried about inflation.

We have been worried for a long, long time, particularly those involved in the agricultural industry.

In agriculture we maintain that although there is inflation, the agriculturists were never responsible for this inflation. I defy anyone to suggest or prove to us here that the agriculturists were responsible for inflation. And then one must remember that after all those years of severe drought conditions, high production costs and mediocre prices for farm produce, agriculturists are finding themselves in serious financial difficulties. There are many of those with whom I have come into contact—I would say about 80 per cent of farmers to-day are running in the red financially. These farmers are running in excess of original arrangements for overdrafts; i.e.: Where they have made arrangements for an overdraft of say R10,000, and they are now in excess of that amount they are being penalized for the inflation which they did not create. When the hon. the Minister of Finance instructed all commercial banks to increase the rates of interest, the first one to be hit by the increase in rates was the poor old farmer because he is in serious financial difficulties. We know that the commercial banks have been instructed to charge 10.5 per cent on overdrawn overdrafts. As I say, the first to be hit by this were the middle and lower income groups. Obviously the rich or well to do man is not affected at all. He is not running an overdraft. It is the poor man and the farmer who is battling, and who is running an overdraft who suffers. What is more—I pointed this out last year to the hon. the Minister of Finance—the farmers were not only running overdrafts and carrying very heavy first and second bonds on their properties. but they were in arrears with their interest as well.

So frequently during the recess people asked me where I lived. I have farms up on the Stormberg Range and I represent an urban area. But where do I actually live? My answer to them is: On the train somewhere between East London and Pretoria, running back and forth seeking financial aid for farmers. My own constituents, as far as financial assistance is concerned, were very well behaved, and comparatively speaking had few problems, but the farmers were the people in trouble. Without exception my journeys to Pretoria, were to see the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank. When the interest rates were raised to 10.5 per cent, the hon. members all know what a fuss was made about it: farmers, agricultural unions, and farmers’ associations were meeting all over the country, and sending deputations to Pretoria. But the Minister said at Vereeniging: “I want to appeal to banks not to resort to such practices.” This was the practice of the commercial banks charging 10.5 per cent interest on overdrawn overdrafts. I know that there are certain people in the Government who deny that the commercial banks were worrying the farmer at all, but they were merely airing their ignorance. This is what was reported concerning one of the meetings I attended:

Hon. members will recall that there was a zero date. The report continues—

I know for a fact that this farmer was not the only one. It is all very well for hon. members to get up on that side and suggest: All is well. “Ons is ekonomies gesond.” I am tired of that story. So the Minister of Finance, because there was so much dissatisfaction in the industry, decided that the banks should not be so hard on the farmers. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister was really concerned about the poor farmer or whether he was worrying about the next election, because if this state of affairs had gone on at the rate it was going on, this Government would not have stayed out their full time. Something would have happened. There would have been a far greater split in the Nationalist Party than there is to-day. I believe that when an industrialist or an agriculturalist invests in a project which is not going to produce more, quite obviously it will create inflation. I have always maintained and I still do, that when we invest in a project which will produce more, it is a good investment. It is going to produce more. This is not inflation. This is what we farmers are trying to do, but we are being handicapped by drought conditions, by a lack of Government agricultural policy and by high interest rates. I shall give you an illustration. I happened to find an advertisement in the Landbouweekblad or Farmers Weekly. (Incidentally, I happened to find out who had placed this advertisement in the paper.) Under the heading “Ewes wanted”, the advertisement read as follows—

But the Land Bank charges very much less than 12 per cent. Why did he not apply to the Land Bank?

If the hon. the Deputy Minister would like to know, he can come to my office any time and I shall help him right. I wish I had the time to answer him here. I want to continue with this advertisement. This farmer could not get the money. I know he could not get it. I went to Pretoria myself. That is how I discovered he was the person who placed this advert. The advert continues as follows—

Now I want to ask a question of the hon. the Deputy Minister who has so much to say. When those ewes have been bought on credit at 12 per cent interest, the lambs’ price will then go up 12 per cent, will they not?

When people have the goods, as he had, and the energy in spite of the drought, after having paid 12 per cent interest which he offered for the sheep, the price of the lambs will then obviously go up by 12 per cent.

Is that an East London farmer?

No, he is a Karroo farmer, the advert says so. After this expensive deal has been completed, I want to know what the housewife would have to pay for mutton. The price has been pushed up, and this is inflation. Mr. Speaker, before my time expires, I just want to mention one point. Here we are battling to produce, whilst the hon. the Minister of Agriculture had this to say. It is a very interesting newsletter and I read from an issue of July 1967:

The farmers must organize their business so that they do not over-produce, but what is the hon. the Minister’s job then? It is his job to find the markets. He is the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and it is the farmer’s job to produce. If we can produce, then there can be no inflation. I say again that the farmers and agriculture in general were never responsible for this position, this inflation; why should we be penalized in this way? We are very dissatisfied and that side of the House will hear a lot more about the treatment the farmers are getting.

Mr. Speaker, now I really feel exhausted. A man’s wife can sit alone for a long time in a place where she dare not speak and you can, just to hear if her husband can still speak. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Potgietersrus on his speech, particularly because he stated that the Sterk River Dam is now supplying Potgietersrus with water. I wish him every success and I hope they will get all the water they want. This brings me now to a point I want to make, even if it is only for the irrigation farmers of Sterk River, so that they can hear that Oom Joost said it. I want to say that I am counting on the raising of those dam wall sluices by crown sluices ten feet high so as to double the capacity. Then my farmers will have a great deal more water than they have at present, and Potgietersrus will also be able to make use of it. This is the beginning of a wonderful co-operation between myself and the hon. member for Potgietersrus in regard to a matter with which the late Mr. Bekker and myself had already made a start.

I should just like to refer to certain remarks made by hon. members on the other side of the House. Hon. members must remember that the other side of the House to mine is not across the floor, but past the hon. member for Winburg and further north. I want to begin with the hon. member for Houghton, and I want to point out that she ought to be “enlightened” enough not to refer in this House to a piece of legislation which is being piloted through this House as a “simple law”. There are a few more of my hon. friends who are going to get the sharp end of my tongue. The hon. member for Orange Grove will now have to aim his airgun pellets in regard to Posts, etc., at another target, and let us hear whether the puffs of those airgun pellets will be audible down wind. The next is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He must not emphasize the fiction that all of us in this House are equally anxious to see everyone in this country equally happy, to such an extent that the people outside take him for a Nationalist. [Interjections.] The hon. member asked me just now why I was so uncommunicative, and I told him that he should give me a chance. When this Government began combating inflation we heard this remark from that side of the House: Why so soon and why such drastic steps? Now we have to hear it being said: You waited too long and you did not act firmly enough; that is why the matter has gone so far now. That was said on 9th February, 1968. The Opposition has, in this debate and in former debates, shown itself very eager to talk about the “brain drain”, but from the foregoing it appears that we are dealing here with a “completely drained brain”. I want to give the hon. member for Durban (Point) a warning. He is so fond of saying “I challenge you”. I know of a stronger man than he who challenged a little man with a sling, and what happened to that strong man? It may also mean the end of that hon. member.

But I want to come back to this motion, and more specifically the field of agriculture. Hon. members are probably very pleased that I am not going to continue giving them the sharp end of my tongue. I just want to point out that bursaries and facilities at the agricultural faculties of our universities are not being utilized to the full. I am talking about the provision of agricultural facilities on a short- and long-term basis. These facilities are not being utilized to the full. At one university alone there is, inter alia, accommodation for 480 students, and last year there were only 120. I am now talking about the far-sightedness of this Government in making provision in advance for the shortcoming which the hon. member saw as a deficiency in the agricultural policy of this Government. In the five agricultural colleges provision has been made for 750 students. Last year there were only 481 students attending these colleges. Alterations to the value of R645,000 have been made at three colleges alone. I would also just like to mention that between 1961 and 1965 no less than 230 aid bursaries were made available, to a total value of R20.753. But between 1948 and 1963 the amount for bursaries was R1,741,490 for 1,403 bursaries. These were made available for students at the agricultural faculties of our universities, and at our agricultural high-schools. I would also just like to say that the specious arguments of the Opposition to the effect that agriculture in South Africa is being neglected, are based on a very obvious lack of realism.

The prices of agricultural products, in contrast to industrial products, will always be subject to serious fluctuations. This is so because the farmer is doomed, once and for all, to miss out on short-term price increases owing to his long-term production policy. It takes a farmer six months after he has planted before he can harvest the agricultural products. For the same reason he is quite unable to avoid a sudden decrease in prices. He simply has to go into this with his eyes open, and nothing can be done about it. However, we know that what happens in industry is simply that a speedy adjustment and a conversion of its products according to supply and demand can be made. The product needed can be made available reasonably quickly. And then, of course, the farmer still has to deal with climatic conditions and other unpredictable factors; insurmountable factors, such as bad harvests and over-production. Surely these are not problems which one can simply rectify and set right by talking as the hon. Opposition thinks one can do. Whenever over-production occurs, the Government sends international trade missions to the East and to the West and finds markets for us which are worthwhile for the farmer, and ultimately rewarding. But what happened under the United Party Government when our farmers asked for a living price for their mealies and could not get it? That was even before the mealie prices were fixed. The doors were then thrown open for Rhodesia to import bags of mealies by the hundreds of thousands, which resulted in our own mealie farmers being brought to their knees.

Does the Opposition realize what is in fact being done for the farmer through the combating of, inter alia, tsetse fly and foot-and-mouth disease? Take note of the number of times foot-and-mouth disease has broken out since this Government came into power, that feared disease which cost so much and has such a destructive effect on the progress of the farmer. It broke in 1949, 1951, 1954, 1957, 1958, 1960 and 1967—no less than seven times during the course of 18 years. On an average it takes two to three years to deal effectively with one outreak. In some regions this disease is endemic. In addition there is the finch plague, the combating of weeds, and added to that there is lumpy skin disease, contagious abortion, fowl-typhoid, and calf-paratyphoid.

The doctors will understand what these words mean.

Mr. Speaker, agriculture, as I read the signs now, must accept drought conditions as the basic norm, and not a period such as last year when we had a great deal of rain. That was abnormal, and it is dangerous to regard such a year as normal and to suppose that the next year will be the same. Ten to one it will not be. This is already the case. I think that this acceptance of drought as the basic norm will have very laudable results for farming. With permission, I would just like to mention the following: This must entail conservation farming of land as well as of water, larger units, more stable integration of the cattle factor, etc. There are even more things I can mention—more cattle fodder provision, greater stability, fewer cash crops, less fuel, less seed and fertilizer, less labour, wages and rations, fewer bad harvest risks the farmer has to run, fewer production costs, less dependence upon the State, greater independence, and ultimate the restoration of pride and confidence in farming, and in addition, too, in the person whose occupation it is. Only then will we hear fewer sighs such as the following from the farmers: “I have lost everything except the unpaid account in respect of production costs.” And if he goes under the Department can still look after him, but nobody brings in that crop which has been lost. If we adopt this course, we will hear fewer and fewer sighs of this nature.

There is another misunderstanding I should like to point out. It is namely the tendency to label the proportionate contribution of agriculture to the net national income as a decrease in the volume of the product. Surely that is not so. Nor must it be attributed merely to decreasing prices. I should like to give you an example. In 1951-’52 the contribution of agriculture to a net domestic production of R2,598 million, was R354 million, i.e., 13.6 per cent. That was very good, much better than in many other countries of the world. But in 1962-’63 the proportional contribution of agriculture was 9.8 per cent. Now it is easy for one to come forward with the distorted view, and say, “Look how agriculture is deteriorating.” It is no wonder the depopulation of the rural areas is taking place at such a disturbing rate. In truth, however, there was an increase of 50 per cent. since the contribution of agriculture to a total of R5.481 million, was R538 million

There are world circumstances over which we have no control, circumstances which are the cause of fluctuation in the prices of products. Neither the Government, nor the farmer, nor anybody else in the world can help these fluctuations. I just want to mention this. Between 1947 and 1954 there was a remarkable increase in the price of agricultural products. What caused this? After the Second World War the demand was greater than the supply. In addition the Korean War also had a stimulated effect and served as an incentive to production. That was the case because the prices was so high. But I go further. After the war farming requirements were freely and unrestrictedly available. That was a case to a far greater extent than during the war, the reason being that armaments were manufactured to a greater extent than inter alia, agricultural machines and implements. In addition the world supplies of agricultural products increased, and countries overseas protected their agriculture by restricting imports from other countries. At that time it was only possible for South Africa to export one-third of its production to overseas countries. It was then we began to experience difficulties with surpluses and low prices. Is the Government to blame now because, inter alia, it had no control over the prices of imported tractors, implements, spare parts, and fuel, etc.? What the Government is in fact doing is to impose no, or a very small import duty on agricultural implements, with a view to keeping the prices as low as possible. In addition it continuously keeps a watchful eye on the prices of these articles in order, inter alia, to prevent excessive price increases, if that is in any way possible.

[Inaudible.]

I could not hear what the hon. member said. The hon. member can come and tell me what he said after this debate. Then I can reply to it at a later opportunity. I just want to point out the position from 1961 to 1966. During that period Onderstepoort supplied 345 million doses of vaccine, of which millions and millions were sent to Black Africa. This is another piece of evidence, and if I say this very loudly in many places it will be taken amiss of me. i.e., that we—also on the advice of the late advocate Strijdom at that time—had to seek the friendship and co-operation of the 250 million Blacks in Greater Africa and that we would have been foolish to bring down their enmity upon us, considering our population of 3 to 4 million.

Between 1959 and 1963 a recoverable amount of R47 million and a non-recoverable amount of R220 million was spent on agriculture by the various agricultural departments. R47 million was recoverable, and R219 million was non-recoverable. In 17 years an amount of R500 million has been spent on subsidies in respect of bread, butter and mealies in order to encourage production and promote the turnover.

I would now like to dwell for a moment on water conservation. Since 1948 R300 million has been spent by the Department of Water Affairs. During the previous 38 years only R64 million was spent. Does the spending of plus minus R500 million in respect of the Orange River Scheme over a period of 30 years not look like a healthy long-term policy for agriculture to those of our people who want to open their eyes and their ears? What else can it be? Let us take note of the levelling of income tax and how this has benefited the farmer. Let me point out to you the hypothetic result. In the year 1968 the farmer’s taxable income is R10 million. Taxation after levelling is R1,053. Without levelling it amounts to R2,734. The difference in the favour of the farmer is therefore R1.600. I must mention these things with reference to the motion in order to show that we are in fact looking after the interests of the farmer in agriculture. In 1969 the income will be R20,000. I have never seen it at such a high level before. Taxation after levelling is R3,204. Without levelling it will amount to R9.114, a difference therefore in favour of the farmer of R5,909. I am taking a five-year period as example. In 1970 the taxable income will be R14,000. Taxes after levelling will amount to R3,361, and without levelling to R5,025, a difference of R1.663 therefore. In 1971 on an income of approximately R2.000 taxes after levelling will amount to R116, and without levelling to R503, a difference of R387 therefore. I shall now furnish you with the total. The total taxable income of the farmer over this period will amount to R46.000. On this amount the taxes after levelling will amount to R8.123, and without levelling to R16,990, a profit for the farmer therefore over this period of five years of R8.896. This is what this Government is doing in the interests of the farmer.

[Inaudible.]

Only the farmer? What does this motion deal with then? The scheme for veld rehabilitation is generally known. It is a scheme which was introduced by the former Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. It is intended, inter alia, to heal the scars that drought-stricken areas were left with. Inter alia, a payment of R16 per head of large stock which would have been able to graze on that area is made after two summers and one winter. But look what a Government that relies on the co-operation of the farmers does. It does not simply give hand-outs and thereby destroy the self-respect and the feeling of responsibility of the farmers. Listen to what the Minister has to say further. He says—

He is not afraid of losing sympathy. He comes forward with a helping hand, but he says to the farmer: You also have a responsibility, and you and I will co-operate in this scheme. It is not a question of holding out a hat or a pair of cupped hands. It is not a question of appeasement on our part, nor of purchasing goodwill. That is why the Government is gaining and keeping the farmer’s confidence under all circumstances. And that is why this will also be the case in future.

I come now to farm planning. The complaint is often made that there is a major backlog in this regard. In this respect our agriculture is also based on a sound long-term policy. I repeat: There have been many complaints about the backlog. But I had a survey made in a few agricultural information districts. I just want to mention them to you. As far as Thabazimbi is concerned, all urgent applications were dealt with on 30th June, 1967. At Ellisras the position was the same. At Warmbaths five new applications, which are less than 12 months old, were outstanding. In Groblersdal five cases for survey were outstanding. There were also new cases which were less than 12 months old. As far as Nylstroom was concerned, there were, apart from applications for contouring, eight outstanding cases, all of them less than 12 months old. I just want to point out that in spite of the shortage of officials, our people are still, as far as this matter is concerned, on their toes and eager to carry out their duties and hasten to the assistance of the farmers. What are the reasons for the delays? I have them here and I am just mentioning them to you. The reasons were: (1) It was sometimes necessary to register liabilities against the assets of the farmer; (2) if a property is subject to usufruct, there are certain documents which have to be obtained and signed; (3) unregistered procurations of power of attorney, where one acts for another person, entail delays; and (4) incomplete and incorrect completion of particulars on forms also delay the process. And what about the commission of enquiry into agriculture? What are the commission’s terms of reference? They are to lay down sound economic and biological farming systems. We shall have to wait a little until we obtain that report. The people are hard at work on it, and certain representations and memorandums have also been submitted by all of you. They must determine in what respects, and in which of its aspects and what regions the present farming system is inadequate, and why. Can you not see that we are on the very tract of what is being asked for in this motion? But then we anticipated this work of the commission a long time ago because a National Party Government is in power. There is a need for such an enquiry now but not for such a motion. Another term of reference of the commission was to make recommendations which would lead to the elimination of such shortcomings. Then there is also the instruction to institute a special investigation and make recommendations in regard to the agriculture in regions which are severely stricken by the drought. I am coming to the end of my speech now. I have one last document, from which I want to quote what Dr. Marais, the chairman of this commission, said. I just want to quote one or two things he said. They read as follows—

We have always been able to bear witness to that. The article continues—

It is the responsibility of the farmer himself, and not that of the State. They realize that. It is not necessary for us to spoon-feed them and to force them. They understand it. This is a fine characteristic which our farmers are revealing after all these years of suffering. I want to conclude with this final quotation—

And this is true—

Sometimes they think it rains grass. Others go further and say that it rains crops. Others again go even further and say that it rains money into the farmer’s banking account. Is that not correct? What does Dr. Marais say? He says that the credit requirements of the farmer after a good year are greater than before and that it is for this reason very important to emphasize that the emergency does not end when the drought ends. Thus Dr. Marais, and thus Joost Heystek of Waterberg.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Waterberg on his speech. He certainly made a jolly speech. I feel that if in the future the Government should want to extend the Cabinet or create another portfolio, they will not have very far to look for a Minister of Entertainment.

Sir, I do not want to follow up all the arguments of the hon. member for Waterberg. He quoted a tremendous spate of statistics to support his contention that all is well in the farming world, that the farmers are getting all the support and all the backing that they deserve from this Government and that they have nothing to worry about. On the other hand. I think the many thousands of farmers out in the country who are bearing terrific burdens in this time of drought and crisis, will get cold comfort from the speech made by the hon. member.

Sir, I want to raise a particular subject that is very relevant to the amendment which this side of the House has moved, that is to say, that a healthy agricultural industry should be established by the Government on a long-term as well as a short-term basis. The hon. member who has just sat down did refer to soil conservation. That is the subject that I wanted to discuss. I think it must be clear to everybody —there is no need for me to stress this point over-much—that unless we have soil stability in South Africa there certainly cannot be a stable agricultural industry, either in the short or the long term. I was very interested when the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted from a White Paper apparently published by the United Party in 1946 …

Tabled here in the House.

… in which the policy of the United Party was set out in regard to agriculture. Attention is drawn in that White Paper to the position of the country at that time. Attention is drawn to the serious extent to which soil erosion had increased, the extent to which our pastures had been depleted and the difficult conditions in which the farmer found themselves. Sir, we hear so much about the “kragdadigheid” of this Government.

Only from that side.

Yes, we always hear it from the other side. We hear so much about the “kragdadigheid” of the Government. They have been in power for 20 years. They keep on mentioning this fact and they are obviously very proud of it. I would have expected that after 20 years with a “kragdadige” Government in power something would have been achieved in respect of soil conservation, but what is the position? The position is even worse to-day than it was outlined in that White Paper. It is common knowledge that 20 years ago we were losing in the vicinity of three million tons of top soil …

That will be the day.

… but to-day under this Government we are losing 400 million tons of the soil. Here we have absolute proof of the incompetence of this Government; things are getting worse, and you can measure this on paper. Sir, these facts that I have mentioned here are amply borne out by the fact that the Government has seen fit this year to sponsor a festival of the soil. I am quite sure that we on this side of the House applaud this very sensible venture. I think that nothing could be wiser than to take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the whole nation to the extent of soil erosion in this country.

The festival is intended to do that.

I agree entirely with that. The objective of the festival is to bring to the notice of the nation the extent and the ravages of soil erosion; to make every citizen of the country aware of his or her responsibility in the battle against soil erosion. I think it is a good thing, but I do hope that one of the results of the festival of the soil will be to awaken the Government to its responsibility in this particular field.

Sir, it would be foolish for anybody to contend that the Government or the State is the sole party responsible for taking steps to control soil erosion in this country. One could hardly expect that of the State, but what we do expect, what the farming community outside expects, what the agricultural sector expects, is that the Government must give a dynamic lead. They look to the Government to give the lead and we set the pace. I think the Government are failing in this regard. This Government last year invested something like R3½ million in fighting soil erosion.

Much more.

I would like to amplify this too. That is the amount spent just on recordable items in respect of soil conservation. There are many other facts in which the Government interests itself—the training of extension officers and a hundred and one other ways. I would estimate that they are probably spending somewhere in the region of R10 million per annum in fighting soil erosion. If the Government is spending that amount of money, then surely they must take a very real interest in this question of soil erosion, but I often wonder, judging by the apathy that I see, and the way in which this subject is approached, whether the Government is really giving proper attention to the way in which that money is being spent. I often feel that some of that money is being wastefully spent. Sir, the Government has at its disposal no less than five agricultural colleges where they can do research. There are dozens of smaller research stations. They are in a wonderful position to give this dynamic lead which I am speaking about, but I must say that as I look around, as I travel around this country, as I see what is going on and as I see the extent to which soil erosion is increasing, I feel that I can quite rightly say that the Government is not doing all that it should. In fact. I would go so far as to say that in respect of the battle against soil erosion the Government has failed during the last 20 years.

Tell us what more can be done?

It might well be that we could advance many arguments here to show why the State should invest more money in fighting soil erosion, but that is not going to be my object in this particular speech to-day. I really want to see if the Government is properly using the money that is at present being invested in soil conservation practices; to see whether it is being used to the best advantage. I very often think, and I am sure, that there is a lack of imagination, a lack of planning and a lack of foresight when the Government comes to plan its campaign as regards soil erosion. Sir. what is the key, what is the most important facet in so far as the Government is concerned in tackling this question of soil erosion? The most important thing that it must try to achieve is to get the cooperation of all the farmers in the country.

There should be the closest co-operation in every field in fighting soil erosion.

That is why you must not make a political issue of the whole affair.

Just let the Government go on doing nothing!

I am facing up to the facts and I am trying to point out to the Government where it has failed. I cannot agree that I am making a political issue of this. The people who hold the key to this cooperation between the Government and the farmers are the extension officers. These are the public relations officers of the Department in its efforts to get soil erosion under control. The Government should be doing all in its power to see that these extension officers, who have a tremendously important role to play, receive salaries commensurate with the importance of their work, that their housing is looked after, and that generally it is that kind of profession which will attract more and more people to do this work. There is a shortage of these people, and I believe the reason for it is that the conditions of service are inadequate.

Another point arises. Are these extension officers, who are the natural link between the Government and the farmers, being used properly? Is the Department making the best use of the services of these people? I believe that it is here the whole thing is becoming shipwrecked. These extension officers are being confined to their offices, doing stacks of administrative work which has no bearing at all on the ultimate battle against soil erosion. Obviously, if these people are to be effective, their place is out on the farm, planning new works together with the farmers and the farmers’ committees. It is absolutely futile to attempt to fight the battle against soil erosion with people sitting in collars and ties in the office. The only place to fight soil erosion is out on the farms where it is taking place. I would like to have statistics compiled to show how many man hours are spent by extension officers and their assistants doing clerical work in the office, and how many hours are spent doing practical work on the farms. I think if we got that figure we would be alarmed to see how much time is actually wasted doing ineffectual work. I hope the Minister will take note of this, because I have had plenty of experience in this matter. I have been at the receiving end of the whole thing and I have seen it through all its phases. I know what goes on. The Minister should thoroughly investigate the whole situation. I can assure him that there are many ways in which he can improve the set-up in regard to the extension officers. I want to make it quite clear that in saying these things I am in no way criticizing the officials of the Department. I must say in their favour that whenever one meets them they are trying to do their best, and they are courteous and helpful. Where the system breaks down is through the policy which is formed in this House. The directive must come from here. If these people are given a proper task which they can hope to complete, they will be more satisfied and the battle against erosion will look more like being won. So often we hear that in our fight against soil erosion there is a shortage of personnel and that we cannot find sufficient people to do the job. I would like to dispel that idea once and for all. If the Government is really serious about this fight against soil erosion, they can make tremendous use of the soil conservation committees. I believe there is a soil conservation committee, or several committees, in every district in the Republic. Our planning has advanced that far, and I think we must be pleased about that. If the Government frames its policy in the right way and makes practical use of these committees, gives them proper powers and is prepared to remunerate them for the services they render, they can play a tremendous role in augmenting the forces in the fight against erosion.

Then there is also another factor. Do not let us have this story about the shortage of personnel, because it does not mean a thing. There are hundreds of farmers throughout the country who can be used as part-time assistants to augment the present shortage of staff. Last year the Government introduced a useful scheme whereby people could apply to be registered as part-time technical assistants in the Soil Conservation Department, but I believe that not nearly enough use is being made of these people. There are hundreds of young and intelligent farmers who are prepared to do this work, and if the Department wants to make use of their services there can never be any argument that there is a shortage of staff.

I want to come to another point and try to get down to the fundamental cause of this bottle-neck that has taken place in the Soil Conservation Department. I lay it squarely in the lap of the subsidy system. I think generally throughout the country the farmers are sick and tired of the subsidy system which has been in use for many years now. Until we are able to find a scheme which can replace the subsidy system, we will continue to have the bottle-necks which have thwarted the efforts of the Government in the past. I believe that in the administration of the Soil Conservation Act, if the Government abandons the subsidy system altogether and goes over to a system of giving the farmers loans to do the work, they will get far better co-operation from the farmers and it will expedite the work a great deal. The subsidy system has many disadvantages, and one of the worst of these is that it encourages bad farming. I think, if we look at the progress of soil conservation over the last 20 years, we will find that the emphasis has been on helping not the good farmer but the bad one. It is perfectly true that where two farmers applied for assistance under the old subsidy system, the man who was the worst farmer and whose farm was worst eroded was the one who most easily qualified for the subsidy. I believe the time has come for us to depart completely from that concept. The policy should be to encourage better farmers and greater production. If a farmer is doing well and he is farming in the correct way, that should not be a disqualification for getting further assistance from the State when he needs it. One might well ask: Is the Government’s policy meant to encourage and build up the health of the patient, or only to put salve on the abscesses as they appear? I think that is what has happened over the last 20 years. We have been trying to patch up the little wounds, the little dongas, instead of tackling the whole problem in a realistic way.

We also hear that there is a new idea that certain conservation farmers are going to be awarded medals for their distinguished service, for their good farming. We on this side of the House do not disagree with that. I think if a farmer has distinguished himself, it would be quite a good thing to give him a medal. But what I think is far more important is that where a farmer has shown himself to be a good conservationist, he deserves the backing of the State to the fullest extent. If that can become the principle, I believe that in our battle against soil erosion we will go very much further. I believe that the best thing to do is to back the good farmer, because by setting a good example he is doing something admirable; a good example is the best teacher. The more we can get the good farmers to build up their farms, the more the bad farmers, when they see that these people are being helped by the State, will be encouraged to follow the example of the man who has set the right course.

Another point that I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister, is the following: I believe one of the key factors in getting on top of this problem of soil erosion in South Africa, is the question of fencing. I believe the more fencing that can be done and the quicker that fencing can be done, the sooner are we going to place ourselves in the position to practice forms of rotational grazing that can solve many other problems of our veld to-day. In that respect I want to suggest that much of the red tape that is involved in getting subsidies on fencing to-day, be eliminated. My suggestion to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he should create Government depots for fencing materials where farmers, having had approval to do certain fencing, can buy that fencing directly from that depot without all these intermediate problems that he is faced with to-day. As the hon. the Deputy Minister will know, there is a subsidy of something like 55 per cent on fencing. Let the price at which the farmer buys that fencing be the subsidized price. I think if the hon. the Minister allows his Department to investigate that matter, he will find that it has very many benefits.

What are you suggesting in regard to boundary and inside fencing?

There will be problems. I do not want to discuss that with the Deputy Minister, but I put out in broad outline that suggestion. Obviously, if fencing is the secret to success in that battle, then, of course, watering points must be provided. In these depots I suggest that the material required for additional watering points must also be available.

There is another point. I do not know whether hon. members have thought about it. There are so many of our young men to-day employed in the Defence Force and there are such things as pioneer battalions in the Defence Force. It might well be that they could be used in some project where they reclaim certain river valleys where serious soil erosion is taking place, because I think the Deputy Minister must agree that a very vital element of our working population is withdrawn by the Defence Force. Here is a role in which they could possibly play a helpful part.

I want to put another suggestion forward. I think this Government has to be helped a bit. It might be wise if they create special soil erosion units with the proper machinery, the proper implements, manned by trained engineers going round the countryside and doing particular types of work on farms where it is vitally necessary.

We are already doing it.

Well, then I believe the service should be extended, because there are hundreds of farms in the Cape Province where the farmers want to do this work. They have not the machinery or the capital to do it. If they were assisted in this way much valuable work could be done in a very expeditious manner.

Finally. Mr. Speaker, the Department should pay far more attention to co-operating with those farmers who have had the initiative and who are prepared to stick their necks out and do experiments in various fields of conservation farming. There are many farmers in this country who have done tremendously valuable work. But I must say that I do not think that the co-operation that should have been forthcoming from the Department has in fact been forthcoming.

That has already been done.

I will discuss that later with the Deputy Minister. But I must make my speech. The point is that a little bit has been done, but a far greater degree of co-operation could have been achieved by the Department with farmers who have taken the initiative. It is an interesting thing. The other day I happened to go to an agricultural symposium at the Grootfontein College of Agriculture where 500 farmers gathered together to listen to the story of non-selective grazing and I make bold to say that the efforts of individual farmers in this particular field have built up the interests of farmers far more than any of the efforts of the Department and all its propaganda. These individual farmers acting on their own have made the farming community soil conservation conscious, they have made them interested in all kinds of grazing systems, and I believe the Department has failed by not co-operating with those people right from the start, as it should have done.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer has at long last touched upon the heart of the Opposition’s attack on the agricultural policy of the Government, namely the question of soil and water conservation, in contrast to the low level at which the hon. member for Newton Park commenced the debate this afternoon. Seeing that some very positive ideas were put forward in the speech by the hon. member for Walmer, but also several negative ones which will have to be debated further by this side of the House, I move—

Agreed to.