Yesterday afternoon we listened here to what was probably the most unconvincing reply which we have ever heard from the hon. the Minister of Community Development. The hon. member for Yeoville asked the Minister to explain why the costs in regard to his journeys overseas were so high in comparison with the costs of journeys undertaken by other hon. Ministers. The hon. the Minister stated in his reply that the reason for that was that in many of the countries he had visited, he had not been able to travel by air, but had had to make use of taxis, and that he had, of course in cases where people had entertained him, to reciprocate their hospitality in a modest way. The question which immediately arises is: Does this not apply to other Ministers as well? I have the details here of a journey undertaken by the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs in 1967. He visited nine countries and there were four persons in his party. His journey lasted one month and five days, and it cost only R10,000. When the Minister of Economic Affairs goes overseas then surely he also pays visits to factories and installations, and is entertained by members of the public and prominent persons, and I take it that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs reciprocates their hospitality. One is quite justified therefore in saying to the hon. the Minister of Community Development that the reply he furnished us with yesterday afternoon was by no means convincing. There is a further conclusion one can arrive at from the hon. Minister’s reply, and I want to put it to him in the form of a question: He states that he had to entertain a great deal, and often had to journey by motor car but is he the only Minister who fulfills his duty when he travels overseas? Is he the only Minister who meets his obligations by entertaining? Are they being negligent when they go overseas? In 1963 when the hon. the Minister of Defence was Minister of Community Development he also travelled overseas, and he visited the following countries: Greece, Italy, Germany, Holland and England. It was also an extended visit and the costs amounted to R9,620. The present Minister of Defence was the hon. Minister’s predecessor. Admittedly the overseas journey of the Minister of Defence took place two years prior to that, and prices could have increased in the meantime.

How long did the journey last?

From 23rd September to 29th October—one and a half months. The hon. Minister must explain to us why his expenditure was so high, in comparison with that of other Ministers.

It is only three times as much.

Sir, we are all being asked to combat inflation, and to spend as little as possible, and I want to say to the Minister of Community Development, in the light of what his journey has cost, that the nation will take very careful note of this type of expenditure. If inflation is to be combated, everyone must lend a hand—not only the nation, but also those who are members of the Government. An hon. member on this side, in a lighter vein, composed the following jingle with reference to ministerial journeys overseas—

But there is another little matter I want to touch upon. The hon. member for Umbilo asked the Minister of Finance whether he thought the additional R1 which he was giving certain groups of pensioners, would be adequate, and why this increase would only be paid out acted 1st October? To that the hon. the Minister replied that the increase could only be paid out after 1st October, because it was only then that the computer would be able to cope with it. But that is not a satisfactory reply. Why should these people do without this R1 from April to October? If there is one section of our population that has to carry a heavy burden in this time of an increased cost of living, it is probably our old age pensioners, and others who are dependent upon their pensions. We want to urge the hon. the Minister to see to it that when these people are granted increases in future, they do not have to wait so long again before they get them. In the past such increases were always paid out sooner, and we cannot see why this cannot be done in this case as well. I am therefore making this appeal to the hon. the Minister.

I now want to touch upon a matter affecting agriculture. The Budget this year can be described as a maxi-Budget, because for the first time it has exceeded the R2,000 million mark. But when we come to provision which is being made in that Budget for agriculture, then I am afraid that this Budget has a real mini look about it. Provision for agriculture is negligible—almost nothing. It arouses people’s hopes, but it cannot provide satisfaction. As regards our agriculture in general, I can say that the situation has improved slightly in some respects. The wonderful mealie crop we had last season, and the improvement in the position of some other products, has resulted in the contribution of agriculture to our gross domestic product having increased somewhat. It is a good phenomenon that the tendency to decrease which was discernible in the contribution of agriculture to our gross domestic product has apparently been checked now. According to the report of the Secretary to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, the contribution of agriculture has remained more or less constant since 1964. It varied from 8.8 to 8.6 to 8.9. It therefore appears that the tendency to decrease in the contribution of agriculture to our gross domestic product has at least been checked now.

But despite this there are more disturbing signs in agriculture than reassuring ones, Inter alia, the debts of farmers have increased from a total of R1,000 million to R1,200 million. For many farmers there is no chance any more of financial rehabilitation. They are burdened to-day by tremendous liabilities. One deputation after the other had to come and see the Minister—in fact, they even went so far as to see the Prime Minister. What about? The unfavourable financial position in which the agricultural industry has found itself. This Budget is the result of their unremitting labours. As I have said, they came to see the Ministers; the Agricultural Advisory Council was obliged to convene; the National Woolgrowers Association came to see the Minister, as did the Wool Board and representatives of the S.A. Agricultural Union. In fact, never before have there been so many deputations to see Ministers of State in regard to conditions in agriculture. Here we now have this Budget, as a result of those representations. What is the result for agriculture? R4 million is being appropriated for the exporters; R1 million for the promotion of the wool industry; R10 million will be made available to the Land Bank …

An additional R10 million.

R10 million is being made available to the Land Bank in the additional Estimates, and R3 million is being made available for further assistance. By the way, where is this appropriation in the Estimates? It seems to me that this R3 million has disappeared, even before the farmers could receive it. If the Minister looks at his Vote, he will see that this appropriation of R3 million was there last year as well. What “additional” assistance is he talking about? Another R150,000 is being appropriated for the promotion of the wattle bark industry. That gives us a total appropriation for agriculture of R15,150,000. This is a result of the labours and work of the farmer; this is the result of the representations of deputations. I say, without fear of contradiction, that the assistance which the farmers are being provided with in this Budget is a shock to them. It is a shock to them because the extent is totally inadequate. The greatest task resting upon us today, is to help our severely stricken agricultural industry to its feet again. They will say: Yes, but we have in fact made an additional concession now. Instead of the R20,000 which can be deducted for estate duty purposes, the amount is now being increased to R25,000. Of course we are grateful for that. But one does not only want to help the farmer when he dies one day. One would like to help him while he is still alive. That is precisely the difference between our approach, and that of the Government. We say that, despite what we are doing to-day, the costs involved in getting that industry back onto its feet will in future be far greater. Where did it suffer its greatest setback; the industry suffered its greatest setback on the economic front.

As a result of what?

Sir, I shall tell the hon. member what caused it. There are three reasons why it experienced its greatest setback. One of the major reasons originated a long time ago. I am glad the hon. member put that question. I want to refer him to what Mr. A. Paul said. He was the deputy chairman of the Wool Board.

Is he bankrupt?

No, of course he is not bankrupt. He stated the following (translation)—

What is that perspective? That perspective is nothing but the tremendous increase in production costs and the fact that the farmer has received unprofitable prices for his produce, and in the third instance the fact that he has been burdened by long drawn out and serious droughts. I think we are entitled to ask this question. Does the Government have the serious intention, and the courage to do what is being expected of them under the present-day circumstances, and not merely to provide a mere trickle of assistance which is nothing more than what they have done in the past? I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture a question, arising out of the statement he issued after the Minister of Finance had introduced his Budget. What more is there than what we have received in the past? That is why I say that hon. members on that side do not have the courage to place the agricultural industry on a sound basis.

How do you want to do that?

That information will also be supplied to the hon. member. This is the full statement issued by the hon. the Minister (translation)—

Apparently that is the only new idea which the Cabinet has considered, and that it has also refused. All the other proposals which were made, I may add, except the R4 million which will be made available as compensation if the export of certain products—I presume that the farmers are also included in this—is prejudiced as a result of devaluation, are nothing new. What else is there besides the old methods in regard to which it has become apparent that they are unable to keep the farmers on their feet? Why was the hon. the Minister not prepared to listen to anything else, to something new?

Tell us how you would like to keep them on their feet?

This side of the House issued a statement even before the Budget was introduced. Hon. members are welcome to discuss it. But the United Party is not governing the country. It is a pity. [Interjections.] Hon. members on that side of the House are responsible for that. We ask whether the Minister of Agriculture is doing his duty in this respect, or is he losing the fight in the Cabinet? We know that hon. Minister of Agriculture. I do not think he bears any farmer in South Africa a grudge, because he is himself a farmer. He knows the farmers well. He ought to be sympathetically disposed towards the farmers of South Africa. But I want to maintain that he and other hon. members on that side of the House, who represent the rural areas, are losing the struggle in their own party. That is why this concession in the Budget comprises a few crumbs only, i.e. because those hon. members who represent the rural areas, and that hon. Minister of Agriculture, are simply incapable of winning the struggle within their own party.

What do the farmers of Bethlehem say?

I maintain that their influence within the ranks of the National Party is on the wane, and that is why they are unable to continue the fight.

You should be pleased about that.

Of course I am pleased. Let me inform the hon. the Minister that I am pleased; but I am sorry for the farmers of South Africa. That is the difference between the hon. the Minister and myself. I am sorry for the farmers of South Africa who are going under while those hon. members are losing the fight.

Where are you going to stand?

This is the so-called Government that has the reply to every problem in South Africa, but this is their real test now, because there is a large section of the population of South Africa that has found itself in the most difficult circumstances. They were prepared to say in regard to other questions: It does not matter what it costs; we will find the money. This is a real test for this Government, and a real test for the rural members on that side of the House to show whether they are capable of saving the situation. They think they can save it by means of an additional R10 million or R3 million or R1 million or the promotion of the wool industry, but what is the true state of affairs? I want to quote a few items which appeared in the Press. In the Sunday Express of 3rd March this year there is a report of an interview with Mr. P. K. Landman, secretary of the Transvaal Agricultural Union. [Interjection.] It does not matter, but I presume he is fair. Here and there one finds a fair Nationalist. The report reads as follows—

That is the position in the Transvaal. Listen to what The Star wrote on 2nd December last year in regard to the position in the Eastern Cape—

The point I want to make is this. We have a situation where we have lost R200 million, and in the Eastern Cape, in a few districts, the situation is such that farmers have lost R3 million there during the past 18 months, and now I want to ask the hon. the Minister the following question: What does he think he can achieve with his meagre additional R15 million—and I say that I do not know where that R3 million is, he must first show me …

Do you suggest that we spend the R200 million on the farmers?

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that if we had been sitting in those benches we would have seen fit to accept responsibility for the situation. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this: Does he think that with the R15 million extra which he is providing this year, he can rescue the situation outside?

Why are you only discussing the extra amount and not the total amount?

The hon. Minister is asking why I am not discussing the total amount. But the total amount has not in the past been able to save the situation.

Why has this situation arisen in our country? Because the Government has neglected all the appeals we have made in the past. We have the situation because, although we pointed out to them the increase in the costs of production and although we told them that they were not adjusting prices, and that the adjustments were not keeping pace with increasing costs of production, they paid no heed to what we told them. As a result of these factors the reserves of farmers in South Africa have diminished steadily. In spite of our appeals, and not only ours, but those of the South African Agricultural Union as well, to include the risk factor in the determination of prices, the Government failed to act. That is why we have a position where the reserves of our farmers to-day have reached a low-water mark. That is why most of our farmers have found themselves in the situation they are in to-day. I want to quote to the hon. the Minister a few extracts from a letter which I recently received from Beaufort West in order to demonstrate to him what the situation is. It reads as follows and deals with the so-called agricultural credit—

The writer then goes on to mention a few cases which he has heard of, where assistance was given. He then refers to his own case and writes as follows (translation)—

He states that he was unable to find assistance anywhere, and writes further—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, when I consider the actions of the hon. members of the Opposition since yesterday, then I must say that there is a vast difference if I compare it to their actions last week when they were debating other matters here. It is very clear that hon. members of the Opposition have been rendered helpless, and have during these two days in particular been rendered helpless by two things, i.e. the result in Pretoria (West) in the first instance, and the masterly Budget introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in the second. Just imagine, Sir, the biggest propagandist of the United Party, the hon. member for Yeoville, the man whose calling it is to encourage his party and provide the driving power here, stood up yesterday like a brash schoolboy and tried to make out a case, during the Budget debate, in regard to the travelling expenses of a Minister who had gone overseas. Just imagine that, Sir!

Reply to his questions.

I shall reply. I want to say to the hon. member for Transkei that each one of these matters can be vindicated. I also want to say the following. The hon. Ministers of this Government are very meticulous in regard to expenditure. I want to maintain that our hon. Ministers are doing everything in the interests of this country. Their journeys overseas are in the interests of South Africa. I do not blame the hon. members of the Opposition for looking to see whether too much has been spent. Do the hon. members know that costs in the U.S.A. and Canada are one and a half times greater than in Europe?

Other Ministers were also there.

Do not talk about other Ministers. I am asking those hon. members a question. Do they know what those costs are? J shall come to other Ministers, and I shall come to the hon. Ministers who visited the U.S.A. and Canada, if that will satisfy hon. members. Now the hon. member is sitting back. The hon. member for Yeoville said here yesterday that a party of the hon. Minister of Education consisting of five persons paid a visit overseas. I have gone into the matter and have found that there were only four in that company. That makes a big difference if the average amount is calculated. For this party of four persons the average expenditure was R4,750 per person. That was the party of the hon. the Minister of Education. The hon. the Minister of Community Development had a party of six persons. Their average costs were R5,400 per person, in other words, an additional R650 per person. Is it necessary for the hon. member for Yeoville, a front-bencher, a person who sits in a bench next to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to stand up here and try and make a case of this matter? Perhaps one should expect this kind of conduct from a party which is bankrupt, a party which has been Pretoria West-ed. To within a few days the total travelling expenses were the same as they were in the cases of these other hon. Ministers with their parties. The hon. the Minister of Community Development and his party were in the U.S.A. and Canada for five weeks, whereas the hon. the Minister of Education and his party were only there for ten days. If the hon. Opposition wants to make up and make out a case, they should see to it that they have their facts straight, and that they use them correctly when they come and state their case here.

That was only the one journey. What about the other two?

I referred to the one in order to indicate to you on which facts the hon. members tried to base their case.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Yeoville. Yesterday he replied to the hon. member for Prieska, who mentioned three things, i.e. the mingling of the various population groups on the buses, the beaches and the parks. Once again the chief propagandist of the United Party stood up and replied to only one of those three things, i.e. in regard to the buses. Now I want to put a straight question to the hon. member for Yeoville, and I take it that he is a statesman who will be prepared to reply to this question. Is the hon. member for Yeoville in favour of apartheid on buses, beaches and in parks? There he sits, the important man in the United Party is unable to reply to this question. I ask the hon. member for Port Natal, who has so much to say in regard to group areas. Is he in favour of apartheid on beaches, buses and in parks?

If you are, why do you not apply it?

I am asking the hon. member for Port Natal whether he is in favour or opposed to it?

You make your speech and I shall make mine.

That is what one gets from the United Party. They run as far away as they can. You know, Sir, there was a very effective placard in the election campaign of the hon. member for Port Natal. On it was stated: “Vote for Winchester, the man who can.” All that should have been added are these words, “the man who can run away”. [Interjections.] I am asking whether those hon. members opposite are in favour of apartheid or not?

Tell us how much you are spending on apartheid?

Tell us what the Administrator said about your commission.

I want to state that the National Party is proud of the Budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance, and it redounds to the credit of the entire Government; but more than that, the people of South Africa are paying tribute and expressing their gratitude to the Government to-day, and in particular to the hon. the Minister of Finance. But more than that even, I know that for this achievement the hon. the Minister is also grateful to the people of the Republic of South Africa for their contribution, because they knew that in these times in which we are living they had to support the Minister and assist him in steering the ship of finance in these difficult days. This is a Government which has come forward to do these things for this country in this way.

But I want to come to the hon. member for Karoo, and I am sorry that he is not present here at the moment. The hon. member is continually discussing race relations in this House, and it is easy to understand—he represents the Coloured population in this House. But what worries me in regard to the hon. member for Karoo, and many hon. members opposite, is that when they come forward with demands in this House in respect of race relations, and particularly demands for the nonwhite population, whether it is in regard to the Coloureds or the Bantu or the Indians, then they never take into consideration what the needs of the white man in South Africa are. This is the problem we have in regard to hon. members opposite and the hon. member for Houghton. Of course the hon. member for Port Natal is their ringleader. He ought to sit next to the hon. member for Houghton.

In addition the hon. member for Orange Grove, and I want to associate him with the hon. member for Karoo because they belong to the same party, raised objections against the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in respect of the implementation of our Bantu policy in general, and in particular the implementation of the Bantu homelands policy. He objected to the hon. the Minister having said that it did not matter what it would cost. In addition the hon. member referred derogatorily to the millions which are being wasted on our ideological policy, and the hon. member for Port Natal did the same. Now I want to pose this question. Do the hon. members for Orange Grove, Port Natal and Karoo not know what is involved in regard to these questions in South Africa? Do they and their party not realize what is at stake? Do they not realize the position the white man here at the southernmost point of the continent of Africa is in? Will they not arrive at the day when they are forced to realize and acknowledge that the only prescription for a political policy that one can follow in South Africa to ensure the survival of all population groups here is the policy of the National Party, and that policy alone? The hon. member for Port Natal has stated that we are spending a great deal of money on it. I want to tell him that we are prepared to pay all we possess if it is for the protection of the white man in Southern Africa. We would then be prepared to throw everything into the struggle, because what is involved cannot be bought with money, and once you have lost, that is the end. That is why I say that we will persevere, and that we will continue with this.

Let me conclude by saying to hon. members opposite that three things are necessary for survival here at the southernmost point of the continent of Africa. What is necessary in the first place is white unity. Secondly, economic power and strength; and thirdly, the peaceful coexistence of the various population groups in the Republic of South Africa.

To start with, allow me to congratulate, on behalf of the agricultural sector, the hon. the Minister of Finance on this Budget. I am doing this deliberately in consequence of the speech made by the hon. member for Newton Park. In the first instance, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister, after the representations that were submitted for the two concessions which were made in regard to estate duties. We wish to convey our deep appreciation to the Minister for that. Particularly as far as the survivors are concerned we would have preferred to see that amount which has been granted passing to the children, because in reality this concession of R5,000, i.e. from R20,000 to R25,000 is an increase in the estate of the survivor. But in the circumstances we are grateful for that concession. So much for that.

The situation in which the farming community has found itself as a result of the prolonged drought and the conditions prevailing there is a tragic one, and assistance is needed. What representations did the hon. member for Newton Park make here? He came forward with a few generalities; he dithered about aimlessly and then mentioned figures in regard to which he ought to feel ashamed of himself. In the first instance he stated that it was not the United Party that is governing the country; it is the National Party which is governing the country and it should consequently accept responsibility as the governing party. Sir, we are prepared to accept that responsibility. The hon. member stated that the farming community has to be satisfied with crumbs which have fallen from the table. It is interesting to note that the hon. member for Newton Park made the same accusation the other day in regard to public servants, and he referred specifically to the assistance which was being given to the agricultural industry, but now the hon. member for Newton Park states that the agricultural industry has to be satisfied with the crumbs falling from the table and that a mere R15 million extra has been provided. Is he correct?

I am still looking for the R3 million of which you are boasting.

Sir, I do not expect things like that from the hon. member. Hon. members on the opposite side also have a responsibility to the country. The Government has its responsibility, but they have an additional responsibility because they must convince the country that the United Party which is now sitting there is no longer the old United Party and that they have changed policies completely; that the policy of the old United Party has disappeared completely, and that they are a new United Party and that their actions will differ from those of the old United Party. They have a difficult task to fulfil. Under the circumstances in which the United Party is sitting there as an Opposition, one would at least expect that they would try to prove to the country that the plans they put forward can be implemented. In the second instance the United Party must realize that when the Government comes forward with proposals to give assistance to any part of the community, the money which is required for that purpose has to be collected from the taxpayers. The Government is merely the trustee of that money; it has no money-making machine at its disposal. That money has to be collected from the taxpayers and handed over to other concerns. It can be done in two ways. One can give out that money either in the form of subsidies or in the form of loans. If it is given in the form of loans, then it has to be paid back, but in the case of subsidies it is not paid back. I maintain that it is the responsibility of the United Party in the first instance to prove that they are no longer the old United Party and that they will not apply the policy which they announced when they were in power if they should ever come into power again. They must convince the nation that they will not adopt that course if they should one day return to power. I want to state a few of the United Party’s old policies. Sir, I have here the White Paper, issued from the office of the former Prime Minister in 1946, shortly before the United Party were lifted from their seats.

Is that the White Paper on the Soil Conservation Act?

It is essential, particularly in the situation to which the hon. member for Newton Park referred to obtain clarity in regard to the question of the farmers’ burden of debt. As regards land values, by which means the cost of production was being increased, that White Paper stated that the farmers were overestimating the value of their land and consequently recommended—this was the policy of the United Party in 1946-’47 (translation)—

That is one of the matters the United Party will have to explain. They will have to convince the country that this new United Party which hopes to come into power is a responsible party and that they can implement their proposals. That was the policy of the United Party during the war years. Sir, this is not the first drought we have experienced, and this is not the first time we have had to cope with inflation. What did the United Party Government do in regard to meat prices during those years? For many years meat prices were deliberately kept down by the United Party Government in order to combat inflation. They wanted to keep the prices in check, and when they could no longer succeed in doing that, they imposed quotas on the outside butchers. In this same pamphlet in which the policy of the United Party during the war years was set out, they state (translation)—

But they go further—and this is an important point in the present circumstances—

Mr. Speaker, we leave it at that. The United Party will in future have to convince the nation of South Africa that they are no longer following this policy if they ever hope to come into power again.

But let us come now to the figures to which the hon. member for Newton Park referred here. He said that a mere R15 million extra was being provided. Is he correct? Here I have the Loan Estimates, and here, too, the General Estimates. Take livestock, for example. The amount for the previous year was R900,000; this year it is R1,500,000. The assistance which is being given to farmers in general under the head “Livestock” is R3 million as against R2,902,000 during the previous year. The assistance which is being given under the head “Dairy Products” is R4,652,000. Under the head “Wheat” the amount this year is R27,788,000, as against R23,514,000. This is a non-recoverable amount. In addition provision is being made for a subsidy of R14,500,000 on fertilizer, and for an amount of R1 million as a subsidy in respect of rail tariffs on manure, etc., a total therefore of R15,150,000. These are amounts which are being spent in the direct interests of the farmers. Under the head “Fertilizer” there is an increase of R1,100,000 this year. Under the head “Maize” provision is being made here for R25,655,000, as against approximately R32 million last year. The latter amount is attributable to the loss on the importation of mealies last year. Under the head “Sorghum” provision is being made this year for R610,000, and under the head “Interest Equalization Contribution” provision is being made this year for R516,000, as against R187,400 last year. Mr. Speaker, I can continue in this vein, but time will not allow me to deal with the capital estimates. These are recoverable amounts.

There are all these auxiliary schemes, but the hon. member for Newton Park has stated that it is only the crumbs falling from the table. I am sorry about that, because I did not expect it from him. This, he maintains, is the crumbs which have fallen from the table—scarcely R15 million. Surely the hon. member must know that he is not correct. The Minister stated explicitly in his Budget Speech that these are difficult calculations, and that if these appropriations do not appear to be adequate enough, it is possible for additional amounts to be made available. It is in fact difficult to estimate at this stage what the assistance will cost. An amount of R3 million, over and above the other amounts, has been made available. This is merely a provisional amount. I will admit that we know that the situation is serious as regards the farming population. If we analyze the true state of affairs, we are confronted by three possible factors which could be responsible for this situation. To what are the problems in agriculture really attributable? is it to be found in the consumer pattern in South Africa? No, because our population is growing steadily and with it consumer standards and standards of living. As far as the future is concerned, we can therefore expect a further increase in the consumption of agricultural products. There is a second factor—prices. Does the difficulty lie here? Census figures indicate that production costs and production prices are very close together, and that the production prices are still higher than production costs. We realize of course that prices fluctuate. We must be careful not to create the impression that agriculture is a beggar or a pauper. But there is still a third factor which could be a possible cause of the problems in agriculture. We owe it to the taxpayer to present him with the true state of affairs. Let me state here that we owe the taxpayers a sincere vote of thanks for the way in which they have supported agriculture in all its vicissitudes and setbacks. Now the third factor, which is natural disasters. Here we find a fluctuation between droughts and rainy seasons. This is not the first nor the last time we will have to contend with drought. But we also experience good rainy seasons. On behalf of the farming population I want to testify here that all the figures prove that they appreciate any assistance they have received in the past, and they have met their obligations in that regard. The result is that the losses which have been suffered in that field where assistance was rendered are quite negligible.

The question now is what auxiliary measures we must apply in order to combat the fluctuations of natural conditions; this can be done in two ways—firstly, by loans; secondly, by subsidizing. But here we come face to face with a problem of a dual nature. If assistance has to be rendered, particularly by way of subsidies, it is essential that the entire farming population should be involved in this. But now we come up against the question, are all the farmers suffering setbacks? Let hon. members on the opposite side tell me whether things are really going badly with all the farmers. If the difficulty in regard to agriculture is to be found in prices, then things must be going badly with all the farmers. If assistance has to be rendered in order to combat drought conditions, that assistance must serve to bridge the drought curve and to help the farming population until they experience better years again. What has this Government now done in this respect? Over the past 20 years it has changed the situation completely. It is true that there were deputations to Ministers and that consultations were held. Here we have the result, but these are only provisional decisions which have been taken, provisional because, as the Minister said, the requirements of agriculture cannot always be calculated. But the Government created the necessary machinery a long time ago. Hon. members opposite must tell me whether better machinery can be created. In the first place the services of people from the agricultural union are utilized on the Advisory Council of the Minister. Compare that with what happened during the time of the United Party.

What advice, if any, did the Minister at that time receive from any agricultural organization? This Government has given the farmers an advisory council, a council which consists of people from the agricultural unions. And how are prices being determined to-day? There are the various control boards—19 of them. On these boards the farming population is itself represented—some are directly elected and others are appointed by the Minister. On the recommendation of the agricultural unions and consumers organizations. They determine the prices in consultation with the Minister. Let the hon. member for Newton Park tell me which prices are not sound. Is he prepared to-day to feed his sheep on mealies, at the prevailing mealie price, taking into consideration the subsidy on railage? If he is prepared to do that, he must not come and tell us that the mealie price is not sound. What prices are not sound? Which of them should be higher? The farmers themselves determine their prices, in consultation with the Minister. And if hon. members want to pretend that the prices are not sound, they must say which prices are not sound. The meat prices perhaps? As I said, the Government has created the necessary machinery to deal with these things. The farming population never had anything of that nature in the days of the United Party Government. I am therefore asking the hon. member who rises to speak after me to say which prices are not sound. If the present difficulties in regard to agriculture are attributable to drought conditions only, we must concentrate on bridging the drought curve. I have confidence in the farming population of South Africa and believe that they will be able to bridge these conditions and I have confidence in the Government that if the assistance which is being rendered is inadequate, additional provision will be made. In the past, it was also necessary to assist farmers with production loans in the case of bad harvests. The Government then guaranteed R10 million to the Land Bank, whereas the farmers were only R5 million short. Surely it is better to make, say, R10 million available, and if it does not appear to be adequate, I am convinced that the Government will make the necessary additional funds available either to the agricultural credit board or to the Land Bank. But in any case we have confidence in the Government and believe that it will be able to cope with a situation such as this.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River again mentioned Pretoria (West). As far as this side is concerned, I do not think we lost any ground. [Interjections.] As far as the National Party is concerned, they received 2.000 votes less than during the previous election. I think that is a very poor show on their part.

As regards the hon. member’s defence of the hon. the Minister of Community Development, that defence really was without any substance and nothing remains to be said about that. I believe that the question of the expenditure was settled yesterday. Money had been spent extravagantly, and what was said did not change that position at all.

I think I shall deal with most of the points raised by the hon. member for Christiana in regard to estate duty, etc., in the course of my speech. In spite of the fact that the agricultural industry is being neglected by this Government, it still remains the most important industry in South Africa. This is the industry which has to feed our nation; this is the industry which must make progress in order to keep abreast of the increase in the population, because at the end of this century the demand for foodstuffs will be twice as high as it is to-day. The agricultural industry is responsible for the production of the raw materials for our secondary industries, which provide employment to approximately 100,000 people in business concerns in the rural areas. This is the industry which is responsible through exports for approximately 50 per cent of our nett foreign earnings, excluding gold. The farmers are responsible for building up the conservative character of our nation, which is absolutely essential. I repeat that the agricultural industry is one of the most essential industries in our country. The Government which is destroying the agricultural industry, is the Government which is destroying the nation. What is the present position with regard to the agricultural industry?

The hon. member for Christiana said here to-day that the position of the farmer was not good.

What farmer are you talking about?

The same farmer about whom the hon. member spoke.

He did not say “all farmers”.

Nor have I said “all farmers”.

You have been talking about “the farmer”. Who is “the farmer”?

There are exceptions to everything. I am speaking about the farmer in general. [Interjections.] I believe there are members opposite who are farmers and who also know that things are not going well with the farmer in general. I say exceptions are to be found in various agricultural sectors. Yet I do not believe that anyone would rise here and make out a case by pointing out instances where things are not going well and what should really be done in that regard.

Surely you can do so now.

The hon. the Minister says I am to do so. Of course we shall do so; it is only this side of the House that does so. The opposite side never does so. Hon. members on this side are the only ones who always keep the Government informed about the real position of the farmers in this country. As I have already said, one member after the other on the opposite side will get up and thank the Minister for the additional dribs and drabs and the additional crumbs—I am also using that word—granted to the farmers. The additional provision made for the farmer in this Budget, is not sufficient to save the farmer. According to a memorandum submitted by the South African Agricultural Union to the commission, the national income per capita has increased by 1.55 per cent, but that of the farmer has decreased by .67 per cent. This position is not attributable to the droughts only.

Where do you get those figures?

Read the report.

I have the report here. On what page are those figures?

I do not know, but it does not make any difference. The recent droughts are not the only things which have caused the condition of the farmer to deteriorate. For many years things have not been going well with the farmer and his position has been deteriorating. Approximately five years ago Mr. Gerhard Bekker, the then member for Cradock, also said in this House that things were not going well with the farmer. He was the only person who said that. Six or seven years ago this side of the House introduced a private motion in which we requested the Government to appoint a commission of inquiry into the agricultural industry. The Minister refused our request and said that that was not necessary. Shortly afterwards members of the National Party took the hon. the Minister to task about this at a congress. The Government was then obliged to appoint that commission, which we had proposed.

Are you prepared to accept the recommendations of this commission?

I do not want to accept the recommendations blindly.

I am asking whether you will accept the recommendations of the commission?

I cannot simply say without having made a study of those recommendations that I shall accept them. That is an unreasonable question. Where has one ever come across a situation of having to say that one accepts the recommendations of a commission when one has not even seen the commission’s report!

What good does a commission serve if its recommendations are not accepted?

Why do you not accept the reports of your own commissions? What about the Tomlinson Commission?

What about the report which was published recently and of which parts were not accepted? Now the hon. the Minister asks, “Why appoint a commission if the report is not accepted?” Why did you appoint that commission? Do I have to accept therefore that the hon. the Minister will accept all the recommendations of that commission?

At least the basic principles.

If only the Government and the hon. the Minister would listen now and then to the guidance given to them by this side of the House, the farmer would not have found himself in this position to-day. Whenever South Africa has a Nationalist Government the farmers find themselves in serious difficulties. We know in what difficulties the farmers found themselves in 1932, partly as a result of their gold standard policy. The United Party was the Party which again placed the farmer on the road of prosperity in 1934 by means of efficient measures for rendering assistance. But with the present Nationalist Government in power the farmer again finds himself in exactly the same position. The United Party will again have to save the farmers.

What is the position of the farmers to-day? Last year this Government allocated an amount of R14 million for assistance to farmers. If my information is correct, this amount was distributed amongst the farmers within two months. Only one third of the farmers who applied for assistance received assistance. The rest of the applications were rejected.

Do you want us to assist all people who apply for assistance?

Now that is a question to ask, “should all farmers be assisted?” Of course everyone should not be assisted, and the hon. the Minister surely knows that.

But I am asking you now whether all farmers who apply for assistance should be assisted?

But I have said no. I do say, however, that the figure should be higher than one third. Fodder loans are extremely high and cannot be repaid to the Government under present circumstances. The anti-inflationary measures of this Government have further aggravated their financial position. By and large the farmers are not the cause of inflation, because they do not have the money to spend wildly. The capital they have built up over the years they have re-invested in their farms and they have incurred further debts where credit was still available to them. At present their debts amount to far more than R1,200 million, as the hon. member for Newton Park said. To the wool-brokers alone they owe approximately R12 million. On this burden of debt the farmer at present has to pay interest at a rate of between 8½ and 10 per cent, and in many cases at a much higher rate. The farmer simply cannot afford to pay that and therefore their position is deteriorating all the time.

Do they have to pay that interest on that amount of R1,200 million?

That is what they owe and they have to pay interest on their debts.

Do they have to pay interest on the entire amount of R1,200 million at the rates you mentioned?

Approximately four years ago the hon. the Minister said in the Other Place that the farmers were not making 3 per cent on their capital. He said they were not even making 3 per cent. How on earth is he to survive when he has to pay interest at a rate of between 8½ and 10 per cent, which is from 3 to 4 per cent higher than before. He simply cannot pay that.

Many of the farmers are no longer able to obtain credit at the present time. Their financial positions are such that they are no longer credit-worthy. As a result of the way in which their position has deteriorated, their assets and their farms are worth less under the present system of credit restrictions. The increased rate of interest means that their additional burden of interest has become more than R20 million per annum, quite possible R30 million. Their wool clip for 1966-’67 decreased by R18 million and their production costs are much higher. How on earth are they to exist? I think their debts to the wool-brokers represent the maximum amount of credit obtainable from the wool-brokers. The ordinary farmer cannot get more credit than he already has. On account of the wool prices and the smaller clip, it will be virtually impossible for them to pay off those amounts.

According to Mr. Frans van Wyk, Chairman of the National Wool Growers’ Association, as reported in Die Burger of 28th September—and now I do not know whether I should quote from Die Burger after the affair of the hon. the Minister of Justice the day before yesterday, but J am nevertheless going to quote from Die Burger—approximately 30 per cent of the wool farmers were experiencing very hard times, while a further 30 per cent were living on capital they had built up during better times. According to the publication Organized Agriculture of October last year, the following statement was made at the congress of the C.P.A.U. (translation)—

In The Woolgrower, the organ of the Wool Board, we find the following—

What affair did the hon. the Minister have with Die Burger?

If the hon. member was present in this House more often, he would have known what I speaking about. We also find the following in the said article—

The article also points out that the Governments of Australia and New Zealand have taken the necessary steps for safeguarding the position of the woolgrower.

In the latest edition of Wolnuus en Opvoeding we read that Dr. Van der Wath, the chairman of the Wool Board said the following (translation)—

According to them they are on the brink of bankruptcy. Dr. Van der Wath emphasized the fact that the position of the woolgrowers were not attributable to grand cars and a luxurious way of life. Many factors, such as the protracted drought, large purchases of fodder, clips of a poorer quality and low wool-prices are responsible for that. I can quote many other publications. I shall quote one more. We find the following in the said publication—

Not one of the hon. members for Prieska, Beaufort West, Graaff-Reinet, De Aar, Calvinia, Colesberg, and the two Eastern Cape members to whom Dr. Van der Wath referred, would rise in this House and say that 60 per cent of the farmers in their constituencies are on the brink of bankruptcy. No, they speak here about segregation on buses and things of that nature. But that their voters in large parts of our country are finding themselves in a miserable position, that we do not hear about.

May I please put a question to the hon. member? I want to ask the hon. member, “Is the Government responsible for the low wool prices?”

Why should I reply to a question like that? The hon. member knows as well as anybody in the world does that the Government is not responsible for that. But that does not mean that something should not be done to save the position of the farmer. That is an entirely different matter. These high rates of interest and the Government’s methods of credit restriction applied by them, are taking more farmers from their farms and are bringing more and more farmers to the brink of bankruptcy, a position from which it is considerably more difficult to get them to rehabilitate themselves. The Minister of Finance said that the monetary banks would as far as possible give more sympathetic consideration to the provision of credit to full-time farmers for their absolutely essential farming requirements.

What has become of this instruction? Was it ever a direct instruction to the banks? Because believe you me, Sir, the credit of the farmers is as restricted as the credit of anybody else. These credit restrictions which are undermining the ability of the farmer to finance his industry, this high rate of interest, these droughts, and on top of all those things, the increasing production costs, are the cause of the position in which the farmer finds himself. Mr. Frans van Wyk of the S.A. Agricultural Union recently said that the increasing production costs and the fact that prices were not always keeping abreast of those costs, formed one of the most important reasons why things could not be going well with the farmer. He also said that the high rate of interest, in some cases 10 per cent or more on capital, was having an arresting effect. As a result of the bad position in which the farmer finds himself, he is obliged to overstock his land to-day. [Interjections.] The farmer has to keep more stock in an attempt to derive a bigger income with the result that there is overgrazing. He cannot implement the scheme of withdrawing certain land from grazing on any part of his farm, because he cannot afford to withdraw that land as he cannot make ends meet without the income derived from that land. That is why this scheme, which is a good one in principle, has become a failure. During the first year which commenced on 1st September, 1966, there were 1,000 withdrawals and in the second year approximately 200 withdrawals, and the Minister should not tell us that the smaller number of withdrawals resulted from the fact that it had rained, because once it has rained, it is the right time for doing these things.

After the rains those who had withdrawn land, again utilized that land for grazing purposes.

Many want to utilize such land for grazing purposes when it has not rained, because then one badly needs that grazing. The farmer who has had rain does not want to utilize withdrawn land for grazing purposes, because in that case he is able to manage in some way. If we want to restore our veld, we must see to it that the farmer will be able to make a living and that he will not be struggling as he is doing now. I have already said that there are farmers who are no longer credit-worthy at the present time. In September last year a farm was sold by auction in the district of Carnarvon. It had to be sold in order to pay estate duty from the proceeds. This farm is approximately 7,000 morgen in extent. I think my friend over there knows this farm, and at the auction the farm went for R6 per morgen. After the auction an offer of R50,000, or approximately R7 per morgen, was made for the farm. Drought conditions did not prevail last year; the price was not that low as a result of drought conditions, but as a result of circumstances, namely the fact that credit restrictions are so severe that farmers cannot obtain money.

Prices depend on the wool price.

Yes, partially they do, but over the last three years wool prices have not decreased that rapidly, and three years ago that farm was worth R18 per morgen, whereas it went for R6 per morgen at a recent sale. The Government itself purchased a farm of 12,000 morgen in the district of Carnarvon from the chairman of the National Party, and they paid R22 per morgen for that farm.

For what purpose?

It does not matter for what purpose. It was not necessary for them to pay those prices; they could have purchased a cheaper farm, but they must surely have believed that to be the market value. Surely they will not pay an exorbitant price for land for this or that purpose. They thought that to be the value of the farm. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to mention another case which is important. Approximately 14 days ago I attended an auction in Marydale of a form 27,000 morgen in extent. It belonged to a young man, a neighbour of mine in that area, a hard-working man I know well. He is a good farmer. Approximately 10 or 12 years ago he inherited 19,000 morgen of that farm from his father unencumbered by mortgages, but under this Nationalist Government he started going down hill. He had to pay an amount of R20,000 to his two sisters. [Interjections.] In addition he had to pay an amount of R23,000 in estate duty. He subsequently purchased a piece of land of 8,000 morgen. Three years ago this farm was worth at least R15 per morgen. This young man made application to the Agricultural Credit Board. I think that his case was a deserving one and that he ought to have been helped, and I believe that the hon. member for Prieska is of the same opinion, because he took this young man to Pretoria to obtain a loan for him either from the Minister or the Agricultural Credit Board.

To me it seems obvious. He already had too much land and then wanted to buy more. Do you want the State to use the taxpayer’s money for buying extensions for farmers who have sufficient land?

He did not buy that land recently but long ago, nine or ten years ago. Those were good years, but as a result of the Government’s policy, he came to grief and to-day he finds himself in Johannesburg.

That is a hard case.

That land was put up on auction and was sold in four portions so as to afford smaller men an opportunity of buying. One portion of 3,340 morgen went at R6.20 per morgen. One portion of 1,400 morgen went at R6.30 per morgen. One portion of 14,000 morgen went at R5.50 per morgen and one portion of 8,000 morgen went at R2 per morgen. This was a well-cultivated farm on which there were 50 camps, all of which had been provided with watering-places.

What was the total amount for which the land went at the auction?

I do not know.

By what amount did it fall short of his application to the Agricultural Credit Board?

I cannot tell you, because I have not made those calculations. But that was a well-cultivated farm which could be bought for R7.50 per morgen at that auction; in other words, his liabilities did not exceed that. Not long ago that farm could easily have fetched R15 per morgen. That was the market value of land at that time.

But what was its economic value?

I repeat that the farmers are no longer credit-worthy; as a result of these credit restrictions they can no longer obtain more loans, nor can they sell pieces of their land. Farmers will drop out one after the other if proper means of financing are not introduced to save the position. We shall have a total collapse of the agricultural industry. What are the causes of that? The one is drought. One is high production costs. One is that the margins of profit are too small. Credit facilities are inadequate. Here in the Cane Province one has divisional council taxes. Extension services to farmers are insufficient and there is too little research; there is a shortage of skilled labour, and above all, there is estate duty.

And over-capitalized land.

It is strange that the hon. the Minister speaks about overcapitalized land just like that. If my information is correct he himself made a bid of R200 per morgen for a piece of land the other day.

But I shall not go to the Agricultural Credit Board if I cannot pay for that land. [Interjections.] I stopped bidding at R160 and then the Leader of the Opposition went to R250.

Estate duty is one of the causes contributing to the downfall of young farmers in this country. They cannot pay that, and it is an absolutely unfair duty. It only brings in a small amount of approximately R19 million. The Minister of Finance has “tucked away”, as the hon. member for Parktown called it, a small surplus of approximately R18 million, and consequently this is one of the duties which has to be abolished if we want to save the young farmers from being ruined. And I believe the time has arrived when the Government has to subsidize interests on loans.

How are we to apply that in practice?

As it was applied in 1934. When the hon. member was a member of the United Party, he knew how that was to be applied, and we shall apply that as it was applied in that time. We shall have to pay a subsidy on wool. Hon. members should not ask me how that is to be done. That should be done as it was done before when the United Party saved the farmers. [Time expired.]

I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) in so far as they brought up special problems of special classes of farmers here. It is most certainly our duty as representatives to do this, but inasmuch as they have painted this sombre picture of agriculture in general in the Republic, I want to cross swords with them quite plainly and definitely, and I also take exception to their snide remarks about this Budget. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to a “mini” Budget in so far as it concerns agriculture. He referred to the debts of the farmers having increased. As far as I know, if the turnover of any industry is increased, and its expenditure is increased, it usually borrows more money. I take for example the latest report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, which states that in 1956-’57 just over R525 million was spent by farmers at agricultural and special farmers’ co-operatives. In the year 1965-’66 just over R900 million was spent at these co-operatives, virtually double the amount. This being so, surely it is reasonable to expect their debts to have increased as a result of the fact that the turnover of the farmers has increased under reasonably favourable conditions.

But let us take other figures to show what progress agriculture has made under this Government, especially during the past few years under this energetic Minister of Agriculture of ours. Let us take agronomy, for example, one of the sectors most subject to natural fluctuations. In 1947-’48 the gross value of agronomical products was R157.7 million. In 1966-’67 it was R637.1 million, an index increase from 106 to 427, which is almost a four-fold increase. Let us take the contribution of agriculture to the domestic product. In 1958-’59 the contribution to the net domestic product was R448.1 million. In 1966-’67 it was R717.9 million.

But let us take another indication—the index of land prices in respect of the maize areas mentioned in the Secretary’s report. The basic years were 1947-’48 to 1949-’50, with a figure of 100. The average figure for all four areas for the years 1962-’63 and 1964-’65 was 284, which means an increase of 184 per cent. I do not want to suggest that there is a 100 per cent correlation among agricultural land prices, production and yield potential, but there is a large measure of correlation, and this is also an indicator of progress and prosperity. Sir, two of the most stringent requirements imposed upon a Government to-day are firstly whether that Government is capable of bringing the means of production within reach of all who are entitled to them within reason, and secondly, whether that Government succeeds in keeping down the cost of those means of production to such an extent that they compare reasonably with producers’ prices. As regards the first requirement, the Government meets this 100 per cent by means of credit provision, subsidization and control, where necessary. To tell the truth, the only sin of this Government is that its continuous schemes of credit provision are so comprehensive today that it is not necessary, whenever a budget is introduced, to mention each specific class of credit provision or each specific class of farmer who is being assisted. This is exploited by saying: This farmer’s name is not mentioned in the Budget and that farmer’s name is not mentioned. Sir, both previous speakers on the Opposition side spoke of crumbs. Let us see what their definition of “crumbs” is. Under Loan Vote D, “Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, alone, R18 million is being provided for assistance to farmers, which represents an increase of R3,400,000 over the figure for the previous year, over and above the considerable additional assistance which the hon. the Minister of Finance has just announced in his Budget. Let me say here at once as a maize farmer that if it were not for the crop loans to hundreds of farmers in my area, they would not have been able to produce this huge record crop last year.

But surely that scheme has been in existence for years.

The scheme was not as comprehensive as the scheme recently announced by the hon. the Minister when the amounts were increased.

Then we come to the subsidization in respect of artificial fertilizers and other materials. The amount for this year is R15½ million, which represents an increase of more than one million over the amount for the previous year, and this is what hon. members on that side call crumbs. If they call this crumbs, I would like to know what the loaf looks like.

The second requirement I mentioned is whether the Government establishes a reasonable ratio between the cost of the means of production and the producers’ prices. From 1963-’64 to November, 1967, the cost of the means of production increased at a slower rate than producers’ prices. The basic years are 1947-’48 and 1948-’49, with a figure of 100. In 1963-’64 the figure for the producers’ prices of agricultural products was 155.3; in November, 1967, it was 177.7. Over the same period the figure for the prices of agricultural requirements, implements and means was 158.1, as against 172.0 in November, 1967, which is a very clear indication that the producers’ prices of agricultural products increased at a higher rate.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is also my duty as a representative of the maize farmers to mention here the special problems with which my production area, the North-Western Free State, and I think a large part of Western Transvaal as well, are faced. These people have once again experienced a devastating drought which has cancelled out the recovery made last year to a considerable extent. Sir, when speaking of maize farmers in my area, we must not conjure up pictures of land barons. My people are mostly middle class and small farmers. I have here the pattern of the maize supplies of the Central Western Co-operative Company over the past three years. This is a representative company, one of the largest maize-receiving co-operatives. The figures are for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967. They receive maize mainly in intensive crop-farming areas. The average number of white producers per year who supplied maize to this co-operative over the three years was 9,655, and the percentage of white producers, members and non-members, who supplied up to 5,000 bags of maize, was 90. I would say that this percentage of 90 was made up of lower middle class and small maize farmers only. It is these people who as a result of the drought are again faced with special problems. I want to plead to-day for special loans to be made available to these farmers at Agricultural Credit interest, namely 5 per cent, for the purchase of stock to be fed on dried-up mealies. This type of assistance, for example, can only be granted to farmers who would normally qualify for crop loans in the next year. And then I want to ask whether the time has not come for us to reconsider the whole question of the basis on which maize prices are determined. I want to refer to certain specific matters in this regard. The position is that maize prices are increasingly being determined on an ad hoc basis, and the two main determining factors in recent times have been the foreign price and the price which the consumer is able to pay for maize. We have a heterogeneous population, and the buying power of the majority of our population is small. They are the people who are to a large extent making use of maize and maize products. I politely want to ask the authorities concerned whether an investigation into the subsidization of consumers’ prices is not necessary, because I regard increased subsidization as one of the best solutions in closing the gap between the price the consumer has to pay and the price the producer has to receive.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there is another matter. As a result of the very favourable export figure as far as the 1967 maize crop is concerned, the Stabilization Fund will be virtually done away with, and instead of the Government again demanding heavy sacrifices of the maize farmer in any particular year in order to build up the Stabilization Fund, I want to ask politely whether the Government cannot grant a loan to the Stabilization Fund at a reasonable rate of interest in order to ensure stable prices to the maize farmers in the following few years.

The hon. the Minister of Finance has rendered considerable assistance to farmers and maize farmers in respect of income tax by means of the system of tax equalization, and this year they will benefit greatly from this when they have to pay tax on the good crops of last year. The hon. the Minister has also made this concession of R3.5 million in respect of estate duty which, inter alia, is also a generous concession to many farmers. In conclusion I want to plead very strongly with the hon. the Minister of Finance for consideration to be given to granting further assistance in respect of estate duty in future, but that in this regard he should concentrate on a rebate per child and that that rebate should be granted on a progressively increasing scale as the number of children in the family increases. I think that if the Minister does this, it will serve as a tremendous encouragement for Whites in the rural areas to have larger families.

I should like to follow up a few statements which the Opposition made in the course of this Budget debate. It is very clear that the hon. member for Newton Park, who always introduces the agriculture debate on behalf of the Opposition, has cultivated the habit of waiting until the debate is in its last throes before coming forward with his attack on the National Party Government and the Minister. I am beginning to conclude that the Opposition really consider the interests of agriculture as being of secondary importance, and therefore they first discuss what they regard as important matters before they eventually come to agriculture. We could of course change this picture by attacking them on the first, second and third day of the debate, but we are not going to let them see our ammunition in advance by always speaking before they do. It is more convenient and very much more practical for us to reply to the statements which they make here.

I refer, for example, to a statement which was made here to the effect that the fact that the risk factor had not been taken into account in the determination of prices in the past, was one of the reasons why agriculture had deteriorated to a large extent. It is wrong to make the general statement here that the farmers as a whole have slipped back, because statistics will prove that this is not the case. I want to ask the hon. member how he would determine the risk factor from year to year in determining the prices of any of these commodities which contribute towards keeping the farmer solvent. I asked him by way of interjection to say something in this connection, and he omitted to do so. I am glad of the admission, after so many years, by the Opposition in this debate that the hon. the Minister does not adopt an unsympathetic attitude towards the farmers. I am glad that the hon. member said here that he did not believe that the Minister of Agriculture was really unsympathetically disposed towards the farmers. But when they go to the country districts, they tell quite another story. I am glad that it is now on record that the main Opposition speaker on this matter does not regard it in this light. I am glad that the air has been cleared in this connection.

In his amendment the hon. member for Pinetown charged the Government with having failed to provide for more adequate measures to rehabilitate the stricken farming industry. That such a statement could have been made testifies to extreme ignorance. The position is in fact quite different. Under those circumstances the measures were adequate, and they were also adequate in the past maize season, since a record maize crop was produced when there were favourable circumstances. They were adequate for the dairy industry, where the production increased tremendously when we had favourable years. They will also be made effective in the future for the purpose and the time in which we live. I think that the proof is there and that no one can deny that they have been adequate up to this moment. But at a later stage, when I have the time, perhaps at the end of my speech, I shall say a few words about this allegation made by the Opposition about the tremendous burden of debt resting on agriculture.

Before I come to that point, however, I do want to give a brief survey, without too much duplication, because the hon. members for Christiana and Kroonstad have already mentioned statistics in connection with these matters. Surely it is very clear from the report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing that under this Government the prices of agricultural products increased by 3.5 per cent during the past year of report, as compared with 3 per cent in the previous year. Whatever the percentage may be, if there is an increase in the producers’ prices, it shows one that even price determinations as a whole are not the responsibility of the National Party Government as such—I have already intimated this here before, and I am repeating it. Hon. members know the procedure which is followed, and because there is consultation, this Government cannot be blamed for this. Take the case mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) in connection with the wool prices. This Government has never fixed wool prices as yet. Wool is an international commodity. The fact that there are wool farmers in South Africa who are struggling is used as an argument here, and then the statement is made that this Government should have subsidized those wool farmers. On what basis must this Government subsidize the wool farmers? Is it possible to determine in advance what the wool prices are going to be? Not one of those hon. members could in any year have determined in advance what the wool prices would be.

I find it particularly noticeable that the people in the areas which have had severe droughts are the ones who are financially worse off than for example those in my constituency. I may tell you to-day, Sir, that my district, Harrismith, is, as you know, the largest producer district in the Republic of South Africa. There are also a few individuals in that district who are not too well off financially. But one cannot generalize. The hon. member suggests here that the price structures as they applied from time to time were exclusively the result of the actions of this Government, and that they are the cause of the present burden of R1,200 million resting upon the farmers. If hon. members look at reports on this matter, also that of the Controller and Auditor-General, they will see that loans made available by this Government were repaid to the extent of up to 33 per cent in one year, and 32 per cent in a previous year. If that 33 per cent and also the 32 per cent of the farmers were in a position to make the repayments under these price structures and these circumstances, the hon. the Opposition may not generalize this position. The Opposition cannot blame it on price structures either. If this position is the result of price structures, I want to agree with the hon. member for Christiana that the same tendency should have been descernible everywhere.

My time is nearly up, but I again want to refer to this amount of R1,200 million owed by the farmers. In the White Paper we have a review of the position of the Agricultural Bank of South Africa. One sees there that there still are tremendous liabilities, namely sums paid out to farmers for production. However, the fact remains that large sums are owing, which must be paid. I want to make further reference to this report. In 1964 arrear interest amounted to R3,600,000; in 1965, R4,100,000; and in 1966, R4,600,000. In 1966 the capital instalments were in arrears by an amount of R2.900,000. My purpose in mentioning these figures is not to say that farming as a whole is in a bad way. A fact which we may not deny, and which has already been mentioned by previous speakers, is that there is indeed a group of farmers who are carrying heavy burdens. These farmers cannot meet their commitments. This is not only as a result of price structures, but in most cases it is as a result of droughts and other damage, such as flood damage.

I want to plead to-day for something for which I have already pleaded on a previous occasion. Before coming to that, I should like to express my appreciation for the R10 million which has been made available in this Budget. I also want to express my appreciation for the R77 million made available for agriculture under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Without these amounts the farmers will not be able to achieve full production. I also want to express my appreciation for the enormous amounts made available for cooperatives. I do not want to repeat the statements made about subsidization, but do I want to express my appreciation for this R10 million. It will not remain at these amounts of R3 million, R10 million and R150,000 if the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet find it necessary to increase the amount. More and more funds were allocated from time to time during drought conditions. I want to suggest that were it not for the numerous measures taken by this sympathetic Government in regard to agriculture, our livestock would have been wiped out to a large extent. Then wool production would have decreased greatly, and we would not have been in the favourable position of virtually producing enough to-day to meet our domestic needs as far as dairy products are concerned.

I now want to mention one final fact. In the light of all these facts, and especially in view of these large amounts, I believe, notwithstanding the fact that 33 per cent is being repaid, that the fundamental cause of this problem is that we have hitherto involuntarily allowed so much production capital to be utilized for agricultural production without it being protected by some or other system of insurance. We know that the hon. Ministers are sympathetically disposed as far as this matter is concerned. We also know that a start has been made and that discussions have been held on this matter.

America realizes that where one could previously invest about one dollar in agriculture to get a return of one dollar, the position today is that one has to invest more than four dollars, which is risk capital, to get a return of one dollar. Because of the fact that so much risk capital—and I have indicated that a large portion of it has been made available by this Government and by the commercial banks out of their own resources—is being invested to enable farmers to produce, I want on this occasion to urge very strongly that the hon. the Minister should make some kind of insurance available to agriculture as soon as possible. My own lay opinion is that production cost insurance would mean a great deal to the farmer, and the sooner we have a system of production cost insurance, the better. Please note that I am not asking for crop insurance. I am only pleading that production costs should be insured in such a way that if the farmer should experience some set-back or other, he should receive some compensation. It would also have affected this Budget to a large extent. From time to time some of that risk capital is lost, as was the case this year. In large areas of the Free State and Transvaal large amounts are lost as a result of drought. If they are covered by an insurance scheme, it will not be necessary for the farmer to try and find capital for production purposes in some way or other during the following year.

My time is up, and I conclude by saying that I make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to give his full attention to this production cost insurance scheme

Mr. Speaker, I wondered whether the hon. member for Harrismith would be able to conclude his speech without saying “Thank you” three times in succession. But he could not.

The hon. member for Harrismith said that so little priority was given by this side of the House to agricultural matters in this debate, and this probably showed how much value we attached to the agricultural industry. It seems to me the hon. member has forgotten that when the Vote of the Prime Minister was discussed two or three years ago, we gave priority to agricultural matters and that we began to discuss those matters early in the Session. At that time we were severely criticized for having regarded agriculture as such an important matter that we dealt with it so early in the debate. The former Prime Minister said so himself.

As regards the question as to whether the assistance given to farmers is sufficient or not, it simply remains a fact from which we cannot get away—whether we want to talk about the burden of debt of the farmers or not—that this burden of debt increased by R200 million during the past two years—and this was said by the director of the South African Agricultural Union. Irrespective of the manner in which the farmers try to wipe out this debt, the amount of this debt has not been reduced yet. I am glad that on this occasion we did not hear only the old story again of how prosperous the agricultural sector was from hon. members opposite who discussed agricultural matters. The hon. member for Christiana started off by saying that agriculture required active assistance and every speaker who followed him was prepared to say the same. Every hon. member in this House who discusses agriculture and who is not prepared to admit that the agricultural sector requires active assistance, is at odds with organized agriculture. Now let me say something about the Budget. Various quarters praised the Budget as a fine and a standstill Budget. It has even been described as a wait-and-see budget, a budget of “Let us see how the situation develops, because there is confusion in the world and monetary and fiscal methods throughout the world are in disorder”. I have not heard very many agriculturalists outside this House say that as far as the agricultural industry is concerned, the hon. the Minister has given as much assistance as he could, even for the purpose of rehabilitating the agricultural industry only partly. I do not want to enlarge on existing means of aid. We all know what they are. Here is a long list dealing with subsidies and means of aid which the Government uses to assist agriculture. We are grateful for that because without it the position would have been much worse than it is at present. Of course, we are grateful for that. But there is something that is being said from all quarters, also by the director of the South African Agricultural Union and the chairman of the Wool Board, yes, by every responsible agricultural leader—and let me not mention the crumbs that fall from the table of the rich man—namely that the assistance that was given was not sufficient to help agriculture to rehabilitate.

How much is sufficient?

We are being asked: How much is sufficient? Do not let me tell you, Sir; we will have it from the report of this commission one of these days. It may probably be said that it will cost R350 million to rehabilitate the agricultural sector.

You should already know at this stage how much it will cost before you make such a statement.

It is almost on art with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture asking the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) a moment ago whether he will accept the report when it is submitted. Why should one do it? Who will commit himself before he has seen a report? Not even the hon. the Minister will do it. The hon. member for Harrismith also said that this side of the House is repeatedly criticizing the price structure of agricultural products. Surely, that accusation is untrue. Hon. members on this side of the House get up here year after year and we not only criticize the price structure of producers’ prices, but we also criticize other agricultural matters. As far as producers’ prices are concerned, we all know how these prices are fixed and we all know that the Government exercises great influence in the fixing of those prices, apart from the recommendations made by the boards in this connection. Apart from that, year after year we on this side of the House discussed other factors, for example increased production costs, about which the ordinary farmer is unable to do anything. He merely has to accept the production costs as they are. We have asked so many times for relief to be granted in respect of the fuel used by the farmers, spare parts and the customs duties payable in respect thereof and so forth. We have asked that the farmer be assisted in that respect so that his production costs may be reduced somewhat because he is getting more and more into difficulties. He is in such difficulties already that it will be no small wonder if we succeed in getting him out of it.

The hon. member for Kroonstad dealt with increased production in the agricultural field during the last couple of years under this Government. I wish hon. members would stop telling us that story. Anybody who knows something about agriculture throughout the whole world will be able to refute that story completely. I can tell him that the production potential and the actual production of Australia, a country which has a much smaller population than we have and which does not have the vast non-white labour potential which we have, increased to such an extent over the same period—probably they have a government which is as good as this one—that they produce five times as much wool as we do. Previously they produced only two and a half times as much. I may also mention their wheat, meat and hide exports and everything that goes with it. I can give that hon. member for Kroonstad figures which will shock him when he sees to what extent production increased in that community.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House was adjourned for lunch I was replying to certain statements made by the hon. member for Kroonstad. I said it was time that that side of the House should stop boasting about what the Government had done for agriculture and the extent to which agricultural production increased during the past years. If one compares this increase with that of other countries in the Southern hemisphere, some of which have black governments, then we have made but a poor attempt to increase our agricultural production. I want to pay the hon. member for Kroonstad this compliment however. He pleaded for his maize farmers and he said that when their levy funds were exhausted as a result of exports and subsidizing, the Government should grant them long-term loans at low rates of interest. He made a constructive contribution to the debate, just as this side of the House always tries to do. We try to get things moving and to stimulate the thoughts of those dealing with agriculture.

When speaking of the importance of agriculture in this country, it may be repeated once again that agriculture in this country produces food and offers a way of live to a large section of our white population as well as to a vast number of Bantu. Mention was made of three and a half to four million Bantu who are living on the farms and who have to make a livelihood out of agriculture. The farmers have to look after them and there are not so many farmers when they have to be divided among the large Bantu population. Mr. Speaker, am I the one to say how important the farming community is to the economy of this country? I leave that to our State President-elect. The State President-elect opened the East London Agricultural Show two weeks ago and said that the provision of food was not the only function agriculture had. He said further—

The State President-elect did not fabricate these figures. If the contribution of agriculture is entitled to receive more consideration than it receives in this Budget. I do not have the time to go into all the facets of agriculture. I want to make a special appeal in respect of the sheep and wool industry. An hon. member asked this morning whether the Government fixed the wool price. No, the Government does not fix the wool price. Wool is unique in so far as it is dependent on the world price and since the Government came into power it has done absolutely nothing to stabilize the wool price. As I say, wool falls in quite a different category then other agricultural products and as such it does not enjoy any protection on the part of the Government as far as prices are concerned. Wool should therefore have been accorded particularly favourable treatment in this Budget.

What about the rebates during the drought?

I shall deal with that later. If an amount of R4,000 million were invested in agriculture as a whole, I would suggest that approximately R2,000 million to R2,500 million was invested in the sheep and wool industry alone. These are not my figures, but it is a calculation made by the Agricultural Union. I want to quote certain their figures and then hon. members will be able to make their own calculations. Farming operations are being carried on on more than half of the surface area of the Republic, while the sheep and wool industry is being practised on more than a third of the surface area of the Republic. The revenue derived from the money invested in these two industries can be ascertained by means of a simple calculation. I said that R2,500 million was invested in the sheep and wool industry, but what does the farmer get out of that? Last year their wool cheque amounted to R98 million. Their income from slaughter animals inside and outside the controlled area was R51 million. I take it that the amount they derived from the increase of their stock through breeding last year was not less than R50 million and I therefore add another R50 million. That brings me to a gross amount of R200 million, being their income from an investment of R2,500 million. This is a meagre gross return of 8 per cent. But I want to go further with my calculations. Since 1967 the wool cheque was reduced by R20 million. Until the end of January of this year the wool cheque was reduced by a further R3 million. The increase in the rates of interest costs the farmer approximately R25 million per year. I should rather not finish these calculations. I suggest that the sheep and wool farmers are farming at a loss and I challenge any hon. member on that side of the House to prove that this is not so. When a farmer farms at a loss and one wants to keep him on the land, one should make a special attempt to that effect otherwise the impression is created that he is not being regarded as important enough—let him leave the land. Speaking of the burden of debt of the farmer, I should like to know to what extent this burden increased during the past few years. Two years ago farmers obtained R7 million from brokers in respect of advances. These advances now amount to between R14 million and R15 million. We accept that these advances were obtained by those farmers who find it difficult to get money from any other organization because they pay the brokers a much higher rate of interest than what they pay the banks. I shall deal with that later. I am showing to what extent the position of the sheep and wool farmers has deteriorated in recent times. I want to go further and I want to discuss the representations made by the National Woolgrowers in this connection. This is what they have declared in this connection in a resolution adopted at their congress (translation)—

Since the farmers of South Africa made the smallest contribution towards the inflationary tendency which had caused credit control, the congress expresses its profound concern about the high rates of interest charged by financial institutions and about the effect of the manner in which credit control is applied to the industry and the fact that an increasing number of sheep farmers are reduced to category three farmers.

The congress therefore urgently requests the Minister of Finance to provide special financing to rehabilitate and maintain the sheep and wool industry, because wool is sold at the same price internally as externally and in this respect it is at a disadvantage as compared with all other agricultural products. I have already discussed the latter part thereof, but I want to go further. Before discussing the assistance which should be given the wool industry, I want to say something further about the situation in the Karoo and I want to make a particular plea with the Minister of Finance as far as the Karoo is concerned. I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister of Justice will give him a chance to listen to me.

When speaking of the Karoo and the particular attention I want the Minister to give the Karoo, I am speaking of an area which extends from Venterstad via Hofmeyr down to Cradock and further south to Springbok and Garies, and I am speaking of an area from Philippolis to Uitenhage and from Kenhardt to the Langeberg, an area covering 500 miles by 300 miles, an area covering almost 150,000 square miles and an area in which no other farming activities, except sheep farming whether farming with karakul sheep or even goats, is being carried on. If the Government is in earnest to preserve this area for sheep farming so that the area is not lost altogether, I now want to tell the hon. the Minister that if methods are not applied to make this area an emergency grazing area, I want to suggest that the whole of the Karoo will never recover again. On the other side of the House we have hon. members like the hon. member for Somerset East and the hon. member for Prieska. I want to ask any one of them whether they think the carrying capacity of the Karoo is still the same as if was a few years ago. There are considerably fewer sheep in that area. The area produces the same number of bales of wool, since we now get 2 lbs. of wool per sheep more than we used to get 10 years ago. We have more wool in those areas with a high rainfall, more wool in Bredasdorp and Caledon, and less wool in the Karoo. It is no use arguing about it. That is so. If we want to reclaim the Karoo for the sheep and wool industry, I want to suggest that, if that area is declared an emergency area and if it is allowed to carry only half the number of sheep so that the other half may be preserved by whatever methods are decided upon—the Minister must help us to do this—or if four or six summers are allowed to pass on a basis of one-third of the grazing being used and that one-third of the area is preserved for two years while the remaining third is preserved for the following two years, and it will take six years to rehabilitate the area, it will still be worth the trouble.

Don’t ask me where the money will come from. I know the money will have to come from the Treasury. It should not be done by means of a subsidy. I do not want to say that the R10 the Government is paying for eight sheep under the present system is so small an amount that we do not even want to look at it. It is a help to the farmer when he wants to rehabilitate his grazing. It is of significance to me that I should be making this speech here to-day when the Festival of the Soil is being celebrated in Cape Town. We are talking of that area which is deteriorating to such an extent that it will be unable later to provide those hundreds of thousands of people who are living there at the moment with grazing and accommodation. Dr. F. J. du Plessis says in this publication Landhounuus, that every appreciative parent should be proud to hand his farm or his land over to his child in a better condition than that in which he received it, and that is how we all feel about it. But I want to make a plea with the Minister of Finance.

I do not know whether this matter is brought to his attention when he prepares his Budget and submits it to the Cabinet; and if the matter is actually brought to his attention, I do not know whether it is brought to his attention in a sufficiently urgent manner. But nobody can dispute the fact that the Karoo has deteriorated to such an extent in recent times as a result of caterpillars and droughts and other factors, even bad government, that it is hard to believe it. The Karoo cannot be rehabilitated unless it is preserved. Also, it is no use blaming the Karoo farmers for over-grazing. They do not practise over-grazing; they cannot practise over-grazing. They are feeding those animals which are left on their farms. The stock do not even graze any longer; hundreds of thousands of animals are being fed with pellets at a cost which the State has to subsidize. If we do not do something to rehabilitate that veld, an area of 150,000 square miles or one-third of the soil of the republic, farming operations in that area will come to a standstill and the people will have to leave the area and the Karoo will throw off its farmers.

I want to come back to the wool position as such. I do not want to pass derogatory remarks about the assistance of R14 million or R15 million that was given, but I want to discuss a statement made by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture the day after the Budget. He was referring to the assistance already mentioned in the Budget and he said (translation)—

This is to the brokers—

We are aware of the representations the National Woolgrowers’ Association, the Wool Board and the S.A. Agricultural Union made to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture over a period of months and we know how he called his old advisory council together. But now I would like to tell the Minister of Agriculture as well as the Minister of Finance that when funds are made available by the Land Bank to the brokers in respect of overdrafts and advances for the wool farmers up to an amount of R15 million, that amount of R15 million is advanced at a rate of interest of 7 per cent and 1½ per cent is added by the brokers because they have to run the risk of recovering those funds. I do not want to advance a plea for the brokers, but tell me: Who will run the risk of getting back such a large amount for less than 1½ per cent? The rate of interest then becomes 8 per cent and that is the rate of interest at which creditworthy farmers can borrow the money from the bank. In that case the broker does not assist the wool farmer at all and this is the matter I should like to discuss with the Minister in order to see whether he cannot do something else in this connection. [Interjection.] The Land Bank is not prepared to grant the wool brokers any loans at the usual rate of interest applicable to cooperative societies, namely 7 per cent, and I said that if the farmer has to pay 8½ per cent interest—and, in the first place, it is the farmer who is unable to obtain credit at the bank—he now pays the same rate of interest to the broker. I want to admit: He will probably be given more time to pay back the loan, but what was the position in the past? The farmer used to deliver his product and he had already received an advance of, say, R5,000 on that product. By the time that product reached the broker’s warehouse the farmer said: “Can you please lend me another R5,000 for next year?” In other words, he already enjoyed credit facilities on his product for several years. In terms of this aid measure he is expected probably to pay back within one year 25 per cent or 50 per cent of the amount the Land Bank advanced to the broker. In other words, he no longer enjoys the credit facilities he has enjoyed over the past years.

My time is running out, but I want to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance. We appreciate these means of aid which have been afforded agriculture up to now and we are grateful for it; when drowning one is grateful for any straw to clutch at, but the fact remains that what is being done here, is not nearly enough as far as agriculture generally and the wool industry in particular is concerned. It cannot rehabilitate the sheep and wool industry. It cannot even keep the sheep and wool industry on its feet because the means of aid which are being offered now are less than what the farmer had before; it is less in this respect, as I have already indicated, that whereas he could obtain an advance of 100 per cent or 80 per cent on his product, he is not allowed to obtain such an advance now because he has to pay back a portion of that money which was lent to him by the Land Bank. In addition, we have increased production costs. I want to make a particular plea to the Minister. I want to conclude by saying once again that agriculture is not afforded its share in this Budget. Much has already been said about the Budget and I do not want to say anything about it in this regard now, because much is still going to be said about it. But agriculture, which has to provide food and clothing to so many millions of people, deserves more sympathy and assistance that it has been given by this Government in this Budget. I want to repeat what was said by the hon. member for Newton Park. I cannot blame the Minister of Agriculture for being unsympathetic towards agriculture. I shall say that he farms in an area where he does not know what drought means. [Time expired.]

For many years I have been sitting here and listening to the United Party’s criticism on the agricultural policy and the actions of this Government and the way in which it deals with agriculture in South Africa, but the more I listen to them, the more I come to realize that the United Party’s points of view are like a weather-vane; they change direction as the wind blows. Not so many years ago the Opposition’s main attack against me as Minister was that deterioration and decline were evident in those industries in which the Minister had a say in the fixing of prices. They mentioned these industries by name, such as the wheat industry, the dairy industry, the maize industry and the meat industry. They then rose and said that God should be thanked for the fact that the Minister did not have any authority over the prices of wool, citrus and export products, because if he were to have any authority over those matters, they simply did not know what would happen. But what is the position this year? This year I listened to the criticism leveled here. I did not hear one argument in regard to the maize farmers, or at least very little from the other side. I did not hear anything about the problems of the wheat farmers; I did not hear anything about meat farmers who had problems, and even less about the dairy farmers, industries in respect of which they had been pretending here all these years that the Minister was to blame for the fact that the prices of those products were too low and that it was for that reason that those industries were finding themselves in difficulties. This year I have been hearing just the opposite. This year those products, in respect of which they have been saying all these years that they are pleased the Minister cannot fix prices, are the products which are allegedly in difficulties. This year they are leveling the accusation that the Government is not doing enough to solve those difficulties. I merely mention this, Mr. Speaker, to show you that when the United Party speaks about agriculture and about assistance to agriculture or about the agricultural policy, they do not pursue any definite policy. What they do, is this: They select those sectors of agriculture where problems do exist at the moment, and then they give out that that is the overall picture agriculture presents. Then they select them as it suits them; if it so happens that it suits them to apply this to the controlled product with a fixed price, then they do so, and if it suits them to apply this to an export product, in respect of which there is no controlled price fixed by the Government, then they also do so, and all they can do, is to criticize. I have been listening here this afternoon to the hon. member for East London (City), who said that no positive contribution had been made by this side of the House, that hon. members on this side had only thanked the Minister for the assistance he granted. But what positive contribution was made by the other side? With great prolixity the hon. member explained that the agricultural industry was one of the most important industries in South Africa, but nobody has ever denied that; there is no wrangling about that. Everybody admits that the agricultural industry is an important one and, surely, the fact that when the agricultural industry finds itself in difficulties, the Government is prepared to take special measures, which it does not do in respect of any other industry in the country, is in fact an admission that the Government regards agriculture as one of the important, basic industries. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Newton Park, who has just made an interjection, said with great prolixity that as far as agriculture was concerned, this Budget was a mini-budget, that it did not do anything for agriculture. I do not know whether the hon. member took the trouble to look at the Budget, but if he does so, he will see that apart from the other facilities that are normally made available to the farmers, provision is being made in this Budget for items which are directly connected with agriculture, i.e. services such as agricultural extension, research, subsidies, etc., to an amount of more than R200 million. This is the amount which is being appropriated in this Budget for agriculture, both directly and indirectly. It represents more than one-tenth of the total Estimates, and then the hon. member says here that this Budget is a mini-budget as far as agriculture is concerned. He bases his point of view on a few figures he quoted here totally out of context. He said that all he could see, was that the Minister had granted an additional amount of R10 million to the Land Bank. But does the hon. member not know how the Land Bank finds its financing? If he does not know, he should try to find out. The Land Bank finds its financing by means of the usual funding of funds amongst members of the general public …

Exactly.

… and it finds it by means of funds which the State has been contributing to its funds over the years. In order to place the Land Bank in the position where it does not necessarily have to increase its rates of interest if there is a sharp rise in its expenditure, the State, too, must make a contribution now by investing funds in the Land Bank at a rate of interest which will enable it not only to invest the R10 million it has in agriculture, but also to invest in agriculture the funds it is specially funding for its objects. But this R10 million enables it to keep the rates of interest it charges the farmers on the same basis as the present one; in other words, the same rate of interest as it is charging on mortgages at the moment. In other words, this R10 million is not the only assistance the Land Bank is granting to the farmers.

We know that.

What was the hon. member’s criticism? His criticism concerned the Budget; he said that in this Budget there was no ray of hope for the farmers. But let us go further. The hon. member knows what the position is in regard to Agricultural Credit as far as this Budget is concerned. In his Additional Estimates at the beginning of this year the hon. the Minister of Finance requested Parliament for an additional amount of R6 million to be made available to the Department of Agricultural Credit for assistance. That was not months ago, but only three or four weeks ago. In other words, on the Additional Estimates R6 million was appropriated, over and above the total amount which is being appropriated in the Main Estimates. Over and above that the hon. the Minister of Finance is appropriating an additional amount of R3 million in these Estimates. In other words, as compared with the original Estimates last year there is an increase of more than R9 million in the total Estimates.

Under what Vote is that?

It does not matter under what Vote it is. The point is that the hon. member suggested here that only a meagre amount of R3 million was being appropriated for agriculture under this Vote; that is the impression he created. He said that it was a mini-budget as far as the farmers were concerned.

Under the circumstances it is too little.

The allegation was made on the other side that no other assistance was being granted to the farmers. (But in his Budget speech the Minister announced that the farmers would be compensated for the losses suffered owing to the devaluation of the British pound to the extent to which prices were being affected by it—not necessarily for the total loss. [Interjections.] It depends on the prices fetched overseas. Let me put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If an export product fetches on the British market a price which is equivalent to last year’s price, due regard being had to the devaluation of the British pound, does he then expect the Government to subsidize that industry? I am asking the hon. member a simple question.

And if we export less, owing to the price increase?

If one exports less and the price increases owing to the smaller quantity which is being imported, then it is a different matter. I am talking about the same quantity or a larger quantity. I shall now put a simple question to the hon. member. Suppose that the same quantity or a larger quantity is being exported and that one obtains a better price which cancels out the devaluation of the British pound, does the hon. member still expect the Government to subsidize such an industry?

You are Alice in Wonderland.

It is obvious, surely, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot give me a reply. He wants to know from me what the Minister of Finance is going to subsidize, but he is not even prepared to say what he wants the Minister to subsidize.

Who is the Government? Are we the Government?

That Party will never become the Government. No subsidy will ever restore an Opposition which devalues to such an extent as the United Party does.

What about the R180 million?

Hon. members of the Opposition give out that nothing is being done here for the farmers. But let us go further. In his announcement the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to the export industries. We know that there are export industries which are faced with problems, and we know that the citrus industry is one of those industries. That is no secret; everybody knows that, and we also know that their problems did not arise as a result of devaluation only. We know that their problems arose as a result of many other contributory factors, factors such as droughts, etc. But instead of hon. members opposite also accepting some responsibility sometimes, what happens? A few years ago in this House I told our citrus farmers in South Africa: “You must be careful as regards the planting of citrus trees and the quality you produce, because you are going to reach the stage where the overseas markets will not be able to absorb all the citrus we produce, let alone the domestic market.” The same hon. members who are now sitting on the other side of the House, jeered at that, and what did the hon. member for East London (City) do when my predecessor, Mr. S. P. le Roux, warned the wool farmers in 1951-’52-’53 and told them, “You must be wary of the high wool prices; you must not adjust land prices accordingly, because the wool price can drop.” The hon. member for East London (City), in his capacity as the then Chairman of the Wool Board, said at that time that the Minister was talking nonsense.

Yes. He did talk nonsense.

There he repeats it. In other words, when the responsible Minister warned the wool farmers and said, “Be careful, do not adjust land prices to the high wool prices,” the hon. member for East London (City), as Chairman of the Wool Board, told them, “Adjust land prices to the wool prices; the Minister of Agriculture is talking nonsense; the current prices will continue to exist.” In other words, he was directly responsible for the high land prices. He was the leader of the wool farmers at that time, and all the problems that have arisen as a result of the tremendously high wool prices, accompanied by a tremendous rise in land prices in the Karoo, and not only land prices, he wants to …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? You say that the farmers paid high prices for land because the price of wool was high. Does that have less bearing on the maize industry if maize prices are high?

No, it does not have less bearing on the maize industry, but when I said in this very same House that in relation to our produce prices our land prices were too high, and that if prices dropped in the overseas markets, our farmers would land in difficulties, and that they should not then expect the Government to grant them assistance on the basis of the high prices they had paid, then hon. members of the Opposition attacked me because of the attitude I adopted and they criticized me. That also applies to the hon. member for Newton Park. Sir, there are industries which are faced with problems. Our citrus industry, as I have already said, is faced with problems. We have made the necessary provision. We have had talks with the Citrus Board and we have made provision. This is not necessarily an altogether separate item on the Estimates, but the assistance which we promised to give the Citrus Board and which they can get, will enable them to export their entire citrus crop this year, whereas they would have had to hold back a large part of that crop if that assistance had not been granted to the Citrus Board. The talks with the Citrus Board have already taken place. I do not want to intimate that the citrus farmers are 100 per cent satisfied with what they received, because no farmer is satisfied ever, but the marketing organization of the citrus farmers is at least being enabled to export their entire crop at a price which will still be a profitable one.

Now we come to the wool farmers, about whom the hon. member had so much to say. He said that no hope was being held out to them in this Budget.

I did not say that nothing was being done. I said that very little was being done.

Fine, very little then. In the first instance, the Government contributed R1 million just in respect of publicity for the promotion of wool. But let me put this question to the hon. member: If the Government has to help the wool farmer, must it put somebody outside the door here with a cheque book so that he may ask everybody who passes by how much assistance he needs? If one grants assistance to farmers, one must after all have a method according to which one can do so. What is the best method for granting such assistance? [Interjections.] If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would listen, he might also learn something. The best method is to do so through the organization which normally finances farmers. The responsibility for recovering that money must be placed on somebody. Does the hon. member want the Government simply to make available a certain sum of money for which anybody can qualify without any check or control?

Of course not.

Fine, where does the wool farmer obtain his financing? He obtains it at various places. Many farmers obtain it from the Land Bank. The poorer ones obtain it from the Department of Agricultural Credit. Other wool farmers obtain it from their wool brokers; others obtain it from their local co-operative societies and other again obtain it from the banks. We know that there are outstanding debts at the wool brokers, and we also know that there are wool farmers who have overdrawn accounts at the banks. We cannot give the banks a sum of money for the purpose of paying off those overdrawn accounts. In that respect the hon. member will at least agree with me, because if that were to happen, there would be many wool farmers whose overdrawn accounts would be paid off where this would not be necessary at all. In other words, when one grants this assistance one has to do so on a discriminating basis. Sir, I am a wool farmer, too, but would the hon. member for East London (City) put forward the suggestion that, in view of the fact that droughts are prevailing in the Karoo and in large parts of our country, the Minister of Agriculture should also be granted a subsidy on wool? No, one must therefore discriminate amongst the farmers in accordance with circumstances. We have worked out that this is the best method. The hon. the Minister of Finance came forward and assisted the Land Bank, but now the hon. member for East London (City) says that it does not help them at all; that there is no decrease in the rates of interest. But at the moment they are paying 10½ per cent interest at their brokers. This money they are not going to borrow at a rate of interest higher than 8½ per cent. That is already 2 per cent less than they have to pay if they can obtain a loan on that basis. But the hon. member says that so far relief has not really been granted, that nothing has been done.

I say in respect of the banks.

The hon. member is referring to the banks. If the person concerned is considered to be credit-worthy at the bank, he borrows it there at 8½ per cent. He finds himself in the fortunate position that he can be helped there to-day. For the person who cannot borrow money there, there are other facilities, and in addition he also has the facilities of Agricultural Credit where he can apply for a loan at 5 per cent interest. I am referring to that section of our farmers who are being financed on that level. When we come to assistance, Whether it is in respect of the citrus industry or the wool industry, one simply has to discriminate amongst the various farmers with their various problems. One cannot take one industry and say, “In this industry all the farmers have the same problem”. The taxpayers’ money cannot be used to grant loans to people who do not need them, or who have extensive investments, with the hon. the Minister of Finance for instance, investments which are, what is more, tax free. After all, that is obvious. After all, it is obvious that that cannot be done. Does the hon. member want the Government to act so irresponsibly as to grant a general subsidy on interest, as to lend money on subsidized interest, also to people whose investments are earning a great deal of interest? Is that what the hon. member wants?

In 1934 that was done for everybody.

The hon. member for East London (City) said that this assistance should be made available to everybody on a proportionate basis. He wants it to be possible for everybody to share equally in a subsidized rate of interest. Now I am asking the hon. member a simple question: Does he want to say that the taxpayers’ money should be used for granting a loan at a subsidized rate of interest of only 5 per cent to a person who has an investment that earns 7 per cent interest? The question I am putting to him is, after all, a simple one. Is that what the hon. member wants? Give me a reply to that. It is, after all, a simple question.

I shall do so—after all, I may not rise and reply now.

That is why I say that the assistance must also be differentiated and that is why we are doing it in the present way. In saying that, I do not want to suggest for one single moment that the Government will, with these relief measures it is introducing, enable every farmer in the country to retain possession of his land. Not for one single moment do I want to suggest such a thing. Many of the problems that have arisen are not attributable to the lower wool price or the drought. Many of the problems with which so many of our farmers are faced, have arisen because at some stage or other the farmer injudiciously paid too much for land when the prices were high. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) mentioned, perhaps unwittingly, an example here. He told us about a person in his part of the world who wanted to obtain a loan from Agricultural Credit, and he mentioned the basis on which he wanted to do so. His application was turned down and subsequently he simply had to sell out. According to his own figures he obtained less for his land at a public auction than he wanted to borrow from Agricultural Credit.

He received less at the public auction, because credit had been curtailed to that extent.

The reason is not relevant here. He received less than he wanted to borrow from Agricultural Credit to keep himself going. That is the basic fact. I do not know what the reason was. The reason might have been that land had been too expensive previously.

No, it was only a few rand per morgen.

The fact of the matter is that he received less at a public auction than he wanted to borrow to keep him on that farm. Now I make this statement: If it were a case of a person whose position had deteriorated over the years as a result of several factors, then I would still say that one should have sympathy with him. But the hon. member himself admitted that a short while before the farmer in question had purchased land at a price which was almost as much as the total he received now.

No, I did not mention the purchase price at all.

I think you said that he had obtained it at R15 per morgen.

No, I said the value was R15 per morgen. I do not know what he paid at all.

Whether it is the value or the price, it is all the same.

Oh no.

Well, then I assume that when the hon. member refers to the value, the price is even higher. I assume that.

No, you cannot assume that.

Then my statement is even more accurate than the hon. member wants to concede. Now I say that if this assistance is granted, certain people must necessarily be disqualified as far as the allocation of assistance is concerned. I am referring to applications lodged with Agricultural Credit. I asked the hon. member whether he expected everybody who applied, to be assisted. We have had several cases of applications for assistance under Agricultural Credit for the purpose of consolidating debts, cases where the applicants purchased land between 1960 and 1964. That was the cause of the applicants’ difficulties. Must the Government use funds that were provided by the taxpayers to assist those people and thus, by implication, condone their high land prices? Surely, the hon. member can see for himself what we would be doing with our whole economic structure if we were to do that. In other words. I do not want to hold out any hope that every farmer in South Africa will be assisted. I do not want to suggest that there will not be any farmers in South Africa who will come to ruin. In the other sectors of our national life it is an everyday occurrence to see people—shopkeepers, shoemakers, and so forth—leaving certain professions.

But more so in the agricultural sector.

The hon. member says that more people are leaving the agricultural sector. I challenge the hon. member to look at particulars in regard to sell-outs over the past four years, and he will see how few farmers were sold out.

You did not hear what I said. In other sectors people are also leaving, but many more are entering them.

But people are also entering the agricultural sector. If the hon. member looks at how many insolvencies and sell-outs there have been over the past four years, he will see that on a percentage basis fewer people in the agricultural industry are involved than is the case in any other industry. He can look it up for himself. He does not have to take my word for it. But that does not mean that assistance will not be granted to those people. During this drought we have been granting special assistance to the sheep farmers in particular. In the drought-stricken areas the Government has, apart from the usual measures taken in regard to subsidies in respect of fodder or the conveyance of stock to other pasture land, subsidized fodder purchases by 50 per cent. What have the consequences been of subsidizing fodder? After this drought, one of the most serious we have ever experienced, our number of small stock increased by 3 million. Now the hon. member refers to the deterioration of the Karoo and the trampling of the Karoo. We agree with him, all of us are concerned about that. But now the hon. member must consider whether this sort of assistance would not in fact encourage the trampling of the veld. What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with land which is being over stocked under present circumstances. I do not have the time to go into the causes of this. Now we introduce with our relief measures, on which that side is insisting, and we provide these people with fodder to keep the stock on land that has already been trampled, without decreasing their numbers, without any rehabilitation taking place. Now the hon. member asks the Minister of Finance—I shall deal with this briefly because my time is short—to withdraw half of the Karoo. We do have a withdrawal scheme. Now I want to ask the hon. member this. If, as a result of withdrawal, half of the Karoo farms with the valuation their land has, has to be subsidized by this Government so that the farmers can make a living, what does the hon. member think it will cost the Government? Can he visualize for one moment that the Government has to pay for withdrawal at the present land valuation in the Karoo? And if it does not do so, the farmers there will not be able to subsist, even if the land is withdrawn. How are they to subsist then?

As things are going now, they cannot subsist in any case.

It is easy to rise here and to suggest such a thing. But if the Government is not prepared to pay for the withdrawal on the basis of the valuation made by the farmer himself, that farmer would not be able to subsist, even if he is paid for that withdrawal.

Then he has to leave.

I want to tell the hon. member that we did the withdrawals in the Northern Transvaal and even in the Cape. What was the effect of the withdrawal? All of them were very eager to withdraw as long as the drought prevailed, but last year when it rained and when that portion of the farm that had been withdrawn, was covered with grass, a large number of them wanted to withdraw their withdrawal.

In the Karoo?

So far that has not happened in the Karoo, because it has not rained there. But if it rains there, you will see that they will come back and will want to withdraw their withdrawal.

No.

Mr. Speaker, I think that in his outlook the hon. member has just as much knowledge of the mentality of the farmer as the hon. member for Gardens has. The position is that one cannot even keep the farmers away from the parts that we as the State have withdrawn, for instance the areas near the Orange River, areas we have bought up and for which we have already paid the farmers. Every day thousands of representations are made to me—and to my colleague behind me who bought up Bantu land—to grant permission for stock to graze on those areas that are covered with grass. Do hon. members now want to tell me that a farmer who has withdrawn half of his farm will not want his stock to graze on that half of the farm if it offers very good grazing? Then the State has to forbid him to do that.

In other words, the scheme is worthless?

Theoretically this is a very fine scheme, as the hon. member tried to demonstrate here with many gestures, but if our farmers do not realize a few things, it will become worthless. In the first instance, they must realize that we are dealing with droughts and that they must implement soil conservation. If they do not realize that the carrying capacity of their land is being overestimated, I am afraid that we shall have to implement measures that are much more drastic. But they will not realize this if the Government is always prepared to grant assistance in all circumstances at all times. That is why I say that this assistance offered by the Government must be such that the maximum number of our farmers will be kept on the land. I agree with that. But it must also be such that by doing so our economic structure in agriculture, and even our own conservation farming, will not be undermined further.

Hon. members spoke of a Budget which was of no assistance to the farmers and to the various industries. I am prepared to allow the organizations which are concerned with agriculture and the farmers who are in the agricultural industry to pass judgment on the assistance the Government has to give them, after they have had deliberations with us. But I am not prepared to allow a group of United Party M.P.s to pass judgment, people who, for political reasons want to exploit for their own benefit this difficult situation in which agriculture finds itself. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has dealt for some time with certain problems that were raised here but it seems to me he very conveniently kept quiet about a point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) when he said that the Government was in fact setting the pace as to the purchase of land and the prices of land. I did not hear him say anything about that. He also said a lot about the interest paid by farmers, and the way they had to set about that. I would just like to point out that in 1934, when conditions were bad for the farming community, there was a United Party Government which did something practical and manageable.

Ask Oom Jannie Wentzel!

Amongst other things I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the price of wool was subsidized, as also the interest to farmers. The railway rates were also lowered, and a moratorium was declared so that farmers could not be liquidated at the time. The hon. the Minister talks about soil conservation. I say, as I have said before, that the time has come that soil conservation committees should be given much more power in dealing with farmers in their areas. I can recall that during the no-confidence debate, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture quoted at great length from a White Paper on agriculture placed before this House in 1946. He dealt at great length with the state of agriculture at that time, and with how low the standard of soil conservation was. He provoked great laughter on the part of hon members on that side of the House, but he did not go on to say what the United Party did about it. He was very quiet about that.

Oom Jannie Wentzel could have told him.

He could have, but he too was very quiet. We know of course that there is such a thing as a Soil Conservation Act. We also know of the Marketing Act, and other Acts, which came during the United Party rule. But I make the charge that to-day conditions are still as bad, after this Government has had 20 years to put our measures into force.

It is quite funny to see the contradictions on the part of hon. members on that side of the House, ever since we started this debate. One hon. member says that farming is not so bad, and having made that statement protecting the Government, promptly goes on to deal with certain problems that exist. Another hon. member then gets up and says that there are problems with farming, and then promptly rallies round the hon. the Minister to protect the Government and its policy. This reminds me of a football match. Hon. members on that side of the House are like a lot of loose forwards, rallying around the hon. the Minister who is the hooker and who is valiantly trying to hook this ball of Government policy. Unfortunately this ball is flat and will not come out. Nobody has said that nothing at all is being done. Every hon. member on this side has said that assistance is given. Indeed, the hon. member for East London (City) waived this memorandum of assistance available to farmers to the House, but we have maintained that the assistance falls far short of what is required. We on this side agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that this is indeed a mini-Budget as far as the farmer is concerned. The hon. the Minister has tried to negate that by saying what is available and what is not. One can go through all these Votes. Take the Vote of Economics and Marketing, for instance, and one will see that the amount voted for this Department is less than it was last year. R77,975,000 is voted for this Department this year, in comparison with R78 million last year. If we look at Agricultural Credit we find that only R23,000 more is voted this year, while in the Loan Vote there is an extra R3 million. In the Loan Vote there is only R3 million and that for an industry which finds itself in the plight agriculture is in to-day. I think this Budget is a micro-mini one. It would all have been very well if circumstances had been normal but circumstances are not normal. They are very much abnormal. It is also time that we got to the end of this story that the Government is not responsible for floods, droughts, pests, etc. I admit that they might not be directly responsible, but we must also remember that these phenomena occur throughout the country all the time. It never happens that one part of our country is not subject to one or other of these circumstances. What makes the position so bad is that as a result of Government policy the farmer is unable to establish himself well enough so that when this disaster strikes him he is unable to survive it. That is the crux of the matter. We have dealt with the question of interest rates. I have also mentioned certain aspects of this matter, but there is no reason whatever why the Government cannot assist the farmers. The hon. the Minister asks whether the Minister of Agriculture will have to be subsidized as well, if there is a general subsidization. Of course not, who would be so foolish. But if he needs it he naturally should be subsidized. There is always a means of determining this. If someone is borrowing money somewhere and investing it elsewhere, the position can be ascertained. If it can be established that a man requires money and that on balance he has borrowed more, then he is entitled to that subsidy on interest. This is not a question of it being impossible. The point is that it has been done in the past. But this is typical of this Government. They allow matters to deteriorate to such an extent that major action then has to be taken to rectify the position. Let us take the question of having an area declared an emergency grazing area. I maintain that there is no farmer in South Africa who would readily have his district declared an emergency grazing area, if he can possibly avoid it. Why then do we have all this palaver of having an area declared an emergency grazing area? Where the farmers as a body have applied to have their area declared an emergency grazing area, investigations must first be carried out which stretch from here to kingdom come. Forms have to be filled in as to the average rainfall and the kind of farming suitable, etc. The department and the magistrate have to make reports. There is so much red tape. When all that has been done and the application has been approved virtually six weeks have passed from the time the application was lodged until approval was given. What is more is that that proclamation is not made effective from that date but normally from some date in the future. In regard to the question of rainfall, do you know, Mr. Speaker, that there are areas in South Africa which can get their normal annual rainfall and still be subject to a critical drought. We have that position in the border areas to-day. Last year we had almost our full annual rainfall. But in a high rainfall area, if you do not get rain every fortnight, you are faced with a drought. If you have not had rain for two months, you are faced with a severe drought. If you have not had rain for six months, then it is absolutely critical. That is exactly what the position in the border areas is to-day.

I have drought for six months every year in my area.

Yes, but that is normal in that area. We have these conditions in the border areas at present. Last year we had an almost ful quota of rain, namely 25.7 inches. But since July last year we have only had three inches of rain, of which one inch fell in July and the other two in November. Since then we have had virtually no rain. Then some of these applications to be declared drought-stricken areas were approved, and others were not. I should now like to quote from a letter from the department which tells why one of these areas was not declared a drought-stricken area:

That was the reason why this area could not be declared an emergency grazing area. It was because normally at this time of the year their dairy cows which were in production were being fed in the manger. Do farmers only have cows in production? What about the young cattle and the calves and the dry cows? What about their other cattle and sheep? No, let us not be ridiculous about this situation. It seems to me that there has developed in the department the idea amongst the officials that they are there to protect the Government and that this emergency area must not be declared too soon. What the reason was I do not know. One would think that if farmers ask an area to be declared an emergency grazing area, they are out to get the world. But what is the immediate effect of this? We get a 75 per cent rebate in the cost of the transport of cattle or sheep out of the area or, alternatively, the transportation of feed into the area. Then we come to the most amazing situation of all. In regard to the question of what conditions must be before an area is proclaimed an emergency grazing area, we find that they say that conditions must be such that livestock have to be fed or taken away to prevent them dying. It would seem that the interpretation is that such stock must already be dying, in fact, before it can be applied. They forget that there are farmers who, when there is no more grazing, start feeding their own stock to keep them alive and in condition. But if there is no more grazing available for them, surely that is the time that they must get the benefit of the area being declared an emergency grazing area so that they can indeed keep their stock in the condition in which they are at that time. What do we find is the result otherwise? We find that the farmers who are able and who perhaps had the good fortune to have laid in a lot of feed, are able to keep their stock. The farmers who are well off will actually transfer their cattle and sheep from there to another area. But this costs the individual a lot of money. The ones who can afford it, do it. The ones who cannot afford it have to stay and see their cattle and sheep deteriorating until this area is declared an emergency area. Then only can they order their feed. By that time so many other farmers have ordered feed that it takes them another month to get the feed they require. It is, then, a question that those who can help themselves will be all right, while the person who is already struggling finds himself in difficulties. That is how we find the position to-day. This also leads to another difficulty. So many farmers find themselves in a position that they actually have to sell their stock. In our area many have actually done that. This year they have sold their stock. I know of farmers there who do not even have ten animals on their farm now. Now what do we find happens? The hon. the Minister of Finance on pressure from us over the years, last year made the concession that farmers can at least equalize the rate of income tax over five years. That may all be very well but that system is not functioning properly yet. Furthermore there are many farmers who do not know what it entails. But if a farmer has not gone in for equalization, it means that the income from the sale of stock this year will all be included in his income for this year and the result is that—the wealthier the farmer the more this amount is—ten to one he goes into the supertax and he has to pay 75 per cent of that over to the Government. [Interjections.] I am talking about the remaining ones. There are farmers who realize that the reaction of this Government will be so slow that they have to go ahead and sell their stock. There are farmers who have actually done that. It is true that he can then warn the Receiver of Revenue that this stock is being sold on account of the drought. In years to come when he re-buys stock he can have it credited against the year in which he sold and be re-assessed. But the position is that he has to pay this tax now. He cannot delay paying the tax. Where does he then get the money to buy new stock? The Government then has his money. I therefore suggest that the hon. the Minister of Finance investigate this position to see whether he can give relief to the farmers in the sale and subsequent purchase of stock.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King William’s Town mentioned the fact that contradictory statements had been made from this side. On the one hand members praise the Government for its sound policy and actions in agriculture, but on the other hand they come to light with problems. But it seems to me as though the hon. member for King William’s Town does not take the evolution of methods and ideas into consideration. What the Government is doing cannot be done better, but we must keep pace with future developments. For that reason suggestions are always welcome. What is more, the hon. the Minister will always pay attention to them. The hon. member also dealt very extensively with the question of the drought and emergency grazing. He also said that the difficulty in which farmers found themselves at present, if there is any such difficulty, was as a result of the present policy of the Government. But I should like to put the matter in this way. A very prominent businessman said to me one day: “If you want to start a business and you want to build up a strong business for the future, you must always remember that you should spend a third of your time on the organization and administration of your business. Another third of your time you must spend on the business itself, and the last third you must spend on the books and finances of your business.”

When does one sleep then?

I am speaking of one’s normal working hours during the day. But it seems to me as though that hon. member is always asleep; that is why he asks such a question. Since this Budget was introduced more than a week ago, the Opposition have had the opportunity of bringing it to the attention of the voters in Pretoria (West) that this Budget of the Government is not in order. They could have brought it home to their people at Voortrekkerhoogte, or to the officials of Iscor or the other people in Pretoria (West), that it could be attacked, and they might have gained support in that way. But what happened was just the reverse. They failed hopelessly there and in spite of the opportunity afforded them by the Government, we emerged with even more distinction from that contest. The hon. member for Port Natal referred in passing to the election and changed the subject very quickly. He never considered the fact that in this election we attracted 70.3 per cent of the votes cast, while the Opposition only attracted a paltry 18 per cent. In 1958 the Opposition attracted 32.3 per cent of the votes and this time they attracted only 18 per cent. This shows that the Opposition is not keeping pace with the evolution of time and thought, as has already been said.

But I want to go further. The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke of an “uninspired” budget, and the hon. member for Yeoville of a “neutral budget”. Other hon. members on that side of the House praised this Budget. They also spoke of the rand which is in such a strong position in the world to-day. The hon. member for Yeoville wanted to drag in the Financial Mail, which had apparently criticized the Government’s Budget, but if he had read it carefully he would have seen that the writer was referring more particularly to the price of gold and the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance did not want to make a statement on the price of gold. The hon. member for Pinetown likewise tried to force the Minister of Finance into making a statement on it. But I should like to refer to the Minister’s Budget speech, in which he stated very clearly—

But I want to go further. The Opposition’s own newspaper the Sunday Times, also said something about the price of gold—

Why the hon. member and the Financial Times want to force the Minister to make a statement on the price of gold, I do not know.

But, to go further, the attacks made by the Opposition during this debate produced absolutely nothing. They reminded me very much of a little boy who wants to climb a pole that has been smeared with grease. If they climb this pole, they slide down again flat on their backsides. This was proved again yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Justice when he wiped the floor with the members of the Opposition about the matter of hotels. Sir, can you imagine that they plead for the classification of hotels when those hotels have already been classified; that they plead that private hotels without liquor licences should be classified; and thirdly, that they plead that hotels should be classified while the proprietors themselves want to demolish those hotels? This is the type of arguments put forward by them. The hon. member for Parktown said that there should be more money available for long-term mortgage bonds, although the hon. member for Peninsula, on the other hand, had pointed out, that there had already been enough money for long-term mortgage bonds in the past and that a further R10 million had now been made available for this purpose. And then they come along here with arguments such as those of the hon. member for Mooi River and Port Natal, who want to make a plea here for mini-dresses. It rather seems as though they have a lack of mini-brains in this debate.

I want to come to the agriculture section of this Budget. Agriculture is one of the four great pillars of strength as regards our inland revenue. The agricultural sector contributed more than R1,300 million to the national income during 1966-’67. This represents 10 per cent of the entire Budget. The other three great pillars are the manufacturing industry, which contributed 21.9 per cent, the wholesale and retail trade, which contributed 14 per cent, and the mining industry, which contributed 12.5 per cent. This is on the revenue side, if the Opposition can read a Budget or a balance sheet. On the revenue side there is 10 per cent, but over against this an amount of R130,644,000 has been spent on agriculture out of the Revenue Account, and an amount of R110,784,000 out of the Loan Account. If one analyses these, it means that 11.76 per cent has been ploughed back into Agriculture from the Revenue Account and 20 per cent from the Loan Account. Any bookkeeper or auditor will tell you that if you receive 10 per cent from one department, you should try to plough back 10 per cent into that department. But the hon. the Ministers of Agriculture and Finance have done more for agriculture here than is expected according to the standards of bookkeeping. This is what is meant by finance.

The hon. member for Queenstown’s own words were that the Minister of Finance had judiciously granted benefits where they were necessary. In the view of the Ministers of Finance and Agriculture, more had to be done for the agricultural sector, and this is why it has been done. We must keep pace with development. Farming, agronomy in particular, requires very extensive mechanization to-day, and perhaps we must consider whether the time has not arrived to pay attention to establishing a more balanced type of farming. By this we mean the following. Particularly in areas where the rainfall is very irregular, the Government may assist a farmer in specializing in one type of farming, for instance, poultry-farming or pig-farming. By this means very great assistance may be rendered to such a farmer and he may establish himself in one direction. Many of them prefer it that way today.

It is unfortunately a fact that according to statistics approximately 13.9 per cent of our white population lived in rural areas in 1965, and according to the calculations on the basis of surveys made, approximately 8.6 per cent of the white population will be living in the rural areas by 1980. At all costs we must prevent agriculture from deteriorating in this respect. For this reason, too, the hon. the Minister deemed it fit once again to vote R18 million, and not R15 million, for agriculture this year in addition to the amount already voted for agriculture. The amount of R4 million set aside for the exporters has already been mentioned. It is for the purpose of retaining the markets in the devaluating countries for the agricultural export industries. This is a laudable gesture on the part of the Minister of Finance. The amount of R3 million for the wool farmers has already been discussed in detail, as well as the amount of R10 million provided from the Additional Loan Account for the Land Bank. Mention has also been made of the R1 million and the R150,000 voted for the Wool Board and the wattle industry. But provision has also been made for indirect concessions to the agricultural sector in the Budget. There is the case of working wives. The wives of many of these farmers who are having such a hard time to-day as a result of the drought, have had to seek employment. Now the Minister of Finance has deemed fit to help those working wives and couples as regards income-tax. Further rebates have been granted for children. All these things add to the indirect concessions.

My time is running out, and I should like to bring a few matters of practical importance to the attention of the Minister of Finance. Many of these farmers received loans for stock-feed and for mealie meal during the drought in recent years. All that the farmers are asking now, is that a further extension of time be granted for the repayment of these loans. This is a practical consideration. Many of them also fell in arrear with the repayment of interest and capital on their Land Bank mortgage bonds in this period. Having had a good crop last year, they tried to pay off some of their debts as soon as possible. They tried to ward off the summonses and the warrants, with the result that they fell in arrear with their payments to the Land Bank. Now they are asking that the Land Bank should be a little more lenient and should not be so quick to take action to sell the farms, even though they are a few years in arrear, as on account of the drought it had been impossible to avoid this. This happened for the most part in the agronomical sector of agriculture.

But I have a further practical suggestion to make to the Minister, and this concerns the Receiver of Revenue. Some of these farmers, when they had good crops, fell in arrear with the payment of their income-tax and subsequently made arrangements with the Receiver of Revenue to pay that tax by way of monthly instalments. Now some of these farmers have perhaps received deferred payments in respect of a tobacco crop and the Receiver of Revenue has seized these deferred payments. What they are now asking is that the Receiver of Revenue should keep to the original arrangement and accept those monthly payments, and that the deferred payments should be returned to them.

My time has expired and I should like to conclude my speech with these few words. The Minister of Finance has once again introduced a Budget in the classical tradition of South Africa this year, and he has maintained the good reputation of South Africa in the world. This year he has elaborated upon his motto of last year, “Work and Save”, and he has built up the economy of the country to such an extent that this year we again have a Budget of strength of which we may be proud.

I should also like to make my humble contribution towards the Festival of the Soil, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. the Prime Minister for the initiative displayed by him last year when he announced that we were going to celebrate the Festival of the Soil this year. It is a very important milestone in the history of South Africa, because it is the first time in history that such a festival is celebrated here. I think we as a House are all in agreement that we must pay tribute to all who are taking part in it.

The soil is very important to us and if we do not have the soil any more it will be of no use to talk of a fine Budget, because then we will have nothing more at our disposal: we will have lost everything. It is in this spirit to-day that we can echo the words of the poet that “the heritage they gave us for our children yet may be”. We hope and trust that the Festival of the Soil will contribute to making everyone conscious of that which is our own. It has been said that we commenced with soil conservation 21 years ago and that we have not made much progress with it. We are indeed making progress, but it will still take years before everyone, big and small, becomes soil-conscious in South Africa. Reflections are being cast on our agricultural economy, as well as on our agricultural production as such. It is a generally known fact to-day that America with its population is responsible for about 50 per cent of the agricultural production of the world. South Africa with its small population of 18 million is responsible for about 50 per cent of the production of Africa. This shows one how much progress our people have made in the agricultural field. This is an important aspect. We have made a great deal of progress in spite of our problems. We must remember that by this time to-morrow afternoon the population of the world will have increased by 180,000; by the end of the year it will have increased by 60 million; by the end of the century there will be six billion people in the world, and this is going to face agriculture with a greater challenge than ever before. There is one thing of which I am sure and that is that the South African agricultural industry will make its modest contribution. By the end of the century we shall have a population of between 35 million and 40 million people, while the whole of Africa, including us, already has a population of 311 million to-day. We are making rapid progress in the technological field, while the black African states are not making such rapid progress in agricultural production. What is the position in our reserves? In spite of the Whites living next to them, in spite of the Whites moving among them, their production is minimal as compared to that of the white man. The same is going to happen in the African states. Their production will make slower and slower progress, and as their population increases, they shall have to import more and more, and South Africa will be the obvious country from which to import. I am convinced that South Africa will make its modest contribution in this regard. What is in actual fact the position as regards our agriculture? Is our agriculture in such a critical economical position as has been suggested here? In this regard I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Gardens.

A moment ago you said that 60 per cent were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Yes, I shall come back to that in a moment, and I shall also come to the hon. member for Newton Park. How many categories of farmers do we have in this country? We have three. The first type of farmer is the one who needs no financial assistance of any kind whatsoever. Then there is the second type of farmer, i.e. the one who is financed not only by the private sector, but also by the Land Bank. While speaking of the Land Bank, I just want to say the following: It has been said here by hon. members that the farmers’ debts with the Land Bank are increasing. This is true; I admit it, but why have these debts increased? For the simple reason—it has come to my notice in my constituency—that the bank managers said to the farmers: “There is plenty of money available; I shall advance you the full purchase price to buy this or that farm which is for sale.” The farmers bought these farms and when credit restrictions were introduced these same farmers had to fall back on the Land Bank. As a result the liabilities of the Land Bank increased. But I now come to the third type of farmer, namely the one who qualifies for assistance from the Department of Agricultural Credit. Sir, how many farmers have applied for assistance under the Agricultural Credit Scheme? Altogether about 15,000 farmers have applied for aid. But this also includes farmers who have taken up loans for fodder and fencing material with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Therefore not all of them were farmers who qualified for agricultural credit. These farmers included, there are 15,000 farmers who have applied to the Department of Agricultural Credit for assistance. How many of these farmers have been assisted? Assistance has been granted to 11,925 of the 15,000. How many applications have been rejected out of hand? 3,098. But if one listens to hon. members on that side, one would think that all applications for assistance from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are being rejected.

If that is the position, what have you done with the money? If the farmers have received nothing, what have you done with the money?

I have the details here of the assistance granted to farmers. The first amount is R31,720,000. This is the amount in respect of the assistance granted to farmers during the period from 1st October, 1966, to 31st December, 1967. This amount has not yet been finally paid out, but R22,834,000 has already been paid out. The aggregate amount is R54 million. This is the amount in respect of the assistance granted to the farmers. Sir, if any government has ever been sympathetically disposed towards the South African farmer, then it is this Government. Our attitude towards the farmer is a sympathetic one. In every deserving case in my constituency where individual farmers have applied for assistance, it has been granted to them.

Mr. Speaker, my time is running out. Why are many of our farmers no longer creditworthy? And now the hon. member for Gardens must please listen. Let me explain the position in this way: take the figure 100 as the basic investment. In my constituency I have found, after working it out with farmers who have problems, that one’s working capital, that is to say, one’s stock and one’s implements should constitute at least 60 per cent of your basic investment in the case of a normal mortgage burden of 50 per cent; then such a farmer can just make ends meet. Why are our stock farmers in such a critical economic position to-day? Purely as a result of the fact that in relation to their capital investment their working capital amounts to 25 to 35 per cent only, while their mortgage burden amounts to 70 to 80 per cent. How on earth can they make ends meet? In the first instance this is due to excessive land prices—and this is the reply to the question which the hon. member put here—and in the second instance to the drought conditions which prevail year after year. This situation in agriculture has developed as a result of over-confidence in agriculture.

How many farmers have bought additional farms in the last 10 years?

A very large number in my area.

One hundred and forty-seven per cent.

I repeat that it is as a result of over-confidence in agriculture that these conditions have developed in agriculture. That is why our farmers are struggling and that is why the young farmers are struggling to enter the field of agriculture, and that is why the Government is assisting the young farmers to make a start in agriculture. As far as the future of agriculture is concerned, we have the fullest confidence in the industry, and we know that under this Government the industry is in good hands.

Sir, I would like to comment on the speech of the hon. member for Aliwal North. He posed the question towards the end of his speech as to what the problem of the farmer is, and he suggested that the high cost of land was the factor which had created all the problems.

And also drought conditions.

That might well be so in several cases, but every farmer has not sold his ground and every farmer has not bought additional ground. There are many farmers throughout the length and breadth of South Africa who have been on the same farms over the last 50 years and because of present circumstances they find themselves in extreme difficulty. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the high price of ground. But even if the high price of ground has something to do with it, agriculture is in difficulties, and this Government will have to do something about it if they wish to see a strong agricultural sector in the Republic in the future.

The hon. member also raised the question of the Soil Festival. I share his thoughts in that regard. I think it is a most commendable undertaking; I believe it can only do good. But I thought that perhaps in this year of the Soil Festival the Minister of Finance would be imbued with the same spirit and that provision would be made in the Budget for a big allocation to fight the dragon of soil erosion. Sir, we have heard so much about the dragon of inflation, but I believe that if we are not able to slay the dragon of erosion, then we need not worry much about the question of inflation. First things must come first and we must solve this problem of soil erosion. I must say that in this Budget I do not see any new dynamic approach to this particular problem.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus started his speech by praising the Government for the Budget. According to him there were apparently no problems at all; every sector of the economy was flourishing. He then said that he wanted to offer some practical advice about certain matters and then he started recapitulating all the tragedies of the farmers who could not pay their arrear interest and who could not pay their income tax, etc. Even in his constituency the hon. member has the problems to which I wish to refer now in my speech. For many years—I would say over the past 12 years—many of the most successful farmers in the Republic have found themselves facing greater and greater difficulties, and I want to say that one of the major reasons for these problems is undoubtedly the fact that for the past 12 years we have had sub-normal rainfall conditions. Conditions of drought have been building up throughout that period and we have reached the situation where in our pastoral farming sectors, conditions to-day are almost untenable. We are approaching or we are already in a period of severe crisis. In all this time of drought and difficulties as a result of the drought, the economic climate too has not been very favourable. Prices have not always been economic and we have seen a constantly rising cost structure as far as production costs are concerned. I would say with all emphasis, Sir, that there are many of our old established farmers who to-day experience conditions of extreme financial difficulty. There is only one quarter to which they can turn in their difficulties, and that is the Government. In the past, when we had good governments, their problems were dealt with sympathetically and their difficulties solved. They have every right during this period of crisis to turn to the Government and to expect assistance in one form or another. Many farmers throughout the country looked forward to this budget in the hope that it would include a plan to help solve their problems. I think many of these farmers must be bitterly disappointed at the extent of the assistance that is forthcoming.

We had the Marais Commission sitting for a long time, and we hoped that by this time we would be able to see what its recommendations are. I do not know if the hon. the Minister knows the contents of the commission’s report. I wish we had access to it to see what is recommended. I wonder whether he will agree to the proposals put forward in due course, or are the proposals in the budget in fact the commission’s recommendations regarding the rehabilitation of the agricultural sector? I very much doubt that these are in fact the recommendations because I believe the report will give us a true picture of the depressed agricultural sector and will make recommendations far more extensive than the relief contained in the budget.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture when he considers the problems of the agricultural sector to do so from a long-term point of view. I think it is wise to do so. I know the Budget contains certain short-term relief measures and only the course of time will show whether these are effective or not. We feel they are not adequate, but it is just as well to reserve judgment and see to what extent they do help farmers in their present plight. I, however, want to deal with the longterm problem. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he really believes that the measures contained in the Budget are in the long run going to put the agricultural sector back on the road to prosperity? I have looked at the proposed measures from every angle, but I cannot see how they can in the long run rehabilitate our agricultural sector. I believe it is high time that we took a long-term view of this problem. I believe it to be the duty of the Government to look at this problem very seriously and, like a military commander normally does, make an appraisal of the situation. The commander makes an appraisal of what his problems are, and when they are well sorted out he decides on a method and a plan. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture should act in the same way. He finds himself confronted by problems, but we have not yet heard what his plans are. We look forward to hearing about them in the course of time.

I want to stress that when viewing the problems besetting agriculture, we must look for the root cause. We must establish what is the root cause of the problem. I say without hesitation, and I do not believe my statement can be challenged, that the root cause of the problem is that our agricultural sector, in all its ramifications, cannot afford to pay the current rates of interest in the country. Any sort of assistance which does not take full account of this fact can never succeed. What is the use of lending farmers money at an interest rate of 8½ per cent when at present their farming operations do not earn them anywhere near that return on their outlay? The assistance we are getting in this respect is but short-term assistance. I believe the Government must look into this problem more thoroughly and eventually come forward with a bold dynamic plan which will have the effect, inter alia, of adjusting interest rates to a level more in keeping with the earnings of agriculture. The Government has acknowledged that the rates at present charged are too high, else why did they fix the interest rate paid on loans made by agricultural credit at 5 per cent? They know that that is an interest rate which the agricultural sector can carry and that any higher rate is above the means of the agricultural industry at the present time.

By granting more and more short-term loans, the position is really being aggravated, because the farmer is being loaded with more capital debt than he can really afford to take on. As I said before, in many cases the interest rates are more than he can afford to pay. If we look at his long-term liabilities, which are mostly in the form of bonds in the private sector, and include the interest he has to pay on his various other debts—to-day at an interest rate of 8½ per cent—then we see the farmer has a heavy burden to carry. I want to try and show later on with figures that no sector of the agricultural industry is able to pay the prevailing rates of interest. That is why the farmers get into trouble. They get in arrears with their payments of interest, and they have still to pay various other debts, as the hon. member for Potgietersrust explained in his speech he just made. That is happening right throughout the country.

Often we are told that many of our farmers are in trouble because they do not run their farms on business lines and because they are not good business managers. This may apply to some of them. The same thing is encountered in the commercial sector. All businessmen are not good businessmen. Similarly, all farmers are not good farmers. I do think that to-day we can say most farmers in the Republic are good farmers who run their farms on good business lines. I want to quote a few figures to show what the position is. These figures relate to the Graaff-Reinet district. I do not want to say it is the best district in the Republic, though I am tempted to do so. But it is one of the best and one of the oldest established districts in the country. An enterprising group of wool farmers there decided to employ an agro-economist to assist them with their farming activities so that they could see whether their farming operations were being conducted on sound business lines or not. There were 28 of these wool farmers, and the average amount of capital invested by each of them in their farming undertakings was R207,000. That was the capital invested. The average net profit made by each farmer over several years was R4,100 per year. On a percentage basis, the net return on the farming operations was 1.9 on capital invested. I do not want it suggested to me that this low figure is the result of their having paid too much for their land. In most cases those farmers have been established there for a very long time. The real reason is that their rising costs, because of the prolonged drought, have reduced their net return on capital outlay. The situation as far as rising costs are concerned is beyond their control. There is nothing they can do about it. Therefore we believe the Government must conceive and execute some long-term plan to rectify this very serious situation.

I want to quote the example of a farmer in the Northern Transvaal, which is one of our best cattle farming areas. Let us take a man who is farming under optimum conditions, doing everything according to the book and according to the economist’s idea of how the farm should be run. If the farmer has 80 per cent calving, if his weaners average in the region of 300-400 lbs., if he enjoys normal seasons, and if his ground was bought at an economic price, the return on his capital outlay is in the vicinity of 7 per cent. If drought comes along, upsetting farming operations, making farming difficult and causing costs to go up, what will it avail that man to borrow fresh capital bearing an interest rate of 8 per cent if the net return on his capital outlay under favourable conditions is no more than 7 percent? These figures have nothing whatsoever to do with the high price of land. I believe the plight of farmers in difficulties can only be worsened by lending them yet more money. On the other hand, if these people are left to their own devices, and climatic conditions do not improve, they face bankruptcy. This is an alarming situation, and I often wonder if the Government really realizes how serious the position is. Many people are moving away from the platteland. We call it the “depopulation” of the platteland. No doubt hon. members opposite will claim this is a natural phenomenon. I could not agree more, because in any developing country the depopulation of the country areas is a normal feature. But there is an accepted tempo for this shift to the towns. As I say, the depopulation of the platteland is inevitable. But if the Government does not take steps to rehabilitate the agricultural sector the depopulation of the platteland will take place at an abnormal rate, because farming has become such an uneconomic proposition. In fact, I want to suggest this is happening at the present time. We in South Africa are dependent on our farming folk. I believe that every country draws its character, its strength and its backbone from its farming people. This is especially so in the Republic of South Africa. We cannot afford to have a single man leaving his farm due to circumstances beyond his control because he will be irreparably lost to our farming community. Our country cannot afford this sort of thing.

Another matter which worries me very much indeed is the alarming extent to which farming as a way of life in South Africa is falling into disfavour. If one goes about in the country one hears it being said by hundreds of young men who normally would take up farming that they do not want to do so because there is no future in farming. Many of them have decided that life on the land is not for them and consequently they leave the countryside. We have to re-establish the confidence of these people in the farming sector, otherwise there are going to be disastrous results. What is even worse is that, because so many Whites are leaving the platteland because of their difficulties, the platteland is falling into the hands of the black people. In the area where I come from it is really alarming to see to what extent the White-Black ratio is changing to the disadvantage of the white people, and something will have to be done about this. What is even worse is this. If something is not done to rehabilitate the farming sector, the black people are also going to start leaving the platteland, and they are going to swamp the locations in the towns which are already over-stocked with people and under-provided with houses.

Sometimes, too, one gets the impression that the Government is not really anxious, really concerned about the future of the agricultural sector, and I want to give a few reasons why I say this. When the hon. the Minister of Finance launched his tax-free R.S.A. bonds campaign he no doubt realized these bonds would attract a considerable amount of money which would otherwise have gone to building societies and trust companies for investment. I think many thousands of rand normally earmarked for investment with building societies and trust companies by-passed these institutions. The Minister realized that the building societies play a very important role in providing capital for people who want to buy or build homes, and he has come to their assistance now with these tax-free share arrangements. I have no doubt that the position will now improve to a very great extent in respect of the building societies. But Mr. Speaker, what has happened in the case of the trust companies in the platteland, and not only in the Karoo, but right up into the Orange Free State, for example Bloemfontein, Kroonstad, etc. In these areas the trust companies have played a tremendous role for a century or more in providing finance for the agricultural community. But because of this new arrangement, funds that would normally have been invested in these trust companies, are bypassing these institutions and going into the tax-free bonds. But even worse, when the Minister of Finance last year introduced the Participation Bonds Amendment Act, the position became even worse. It has been demonstrated that people who normally would invest their finance in these trust companies and via the trust companies into the agricultural sector, are no longer doing so because of the other more attractive investments that have become available. The agricultural sector to-day in the platteland has no source to which it can turn to get its finance. I think the position is such that we can ask the Minister of Finance to look into the matter. I just want to illustrate my point.

One case is that of a young lad who prematurely had to leave the university to take over his father’s farm, his father having died suddenly. This was a bond-free farm. Unfortunately this young lad had to pay considerable death dues and with that all his credit facilities were taken up at the bank. To-day he is in the position where he can get no more assistance from the bank. He is too rich to get any money from the Land Bank or the Department of Agricultural Credit. The trust companies which normally used to do agricultural financing have no funds to lend this fellow. So here he is, a rich young man, with no source of credit whatsoever. I am not making this up. Here is a letter which I have just had from this young lad. He has appealed to me to try and do something for him.

Here is another case. A very solvent farmer had his bond with a private individual. The other day it was called up. He finds himself unable to repay this bond. The bank is quite prepared to lend him the money, but they may not do it, because they do not have the funds available for this particular purpose. He goes to the Land Bank, who says: No, you are far too rich; you are not the kind of individual that we can help. Then he goes to the trust company, who says: No, we have no money, because our sources of finance have dried up.

You are lying now.

Of course these facts are correct.

Mr. Speaker, may I take a point of order? Is the hon. member there allowed to say, “You are lying” to the hon. member who is speaking?

Who was it?

The hon. member himself knows.

Order!

With respect to you, Mr. Speaker, nobody here mentioned the word “lie”. I said it was not true and that the hon. member should know that it is not true.

Mr. Speaker, I accept the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. member on that side who said “jy lieg”, knows it, and I know he said it.

Order! Will the hon. member point out the hon. member who said so, if he knows who it is?

It is the hon. member who has just moved to the front row, the hon. member for Harrismith.

Order! Did the hon. member say that the hon. member was lying?

No, Mr. Speaker, I never used that word. Hon. members sitting around me here know that I did not say anything of the kind. I did not even take any notice of it.

Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. member’s word.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, to resume, I want to say that we must remember that these are good, honest farmers that do not want to come to the Government for assistance. They are people who feel that they are self-sufficient and the last thing that they want to do is to ask for assistance from the State I believe that cases like that need serious investigation.

Now I want to come to a conclusion. I want to say that we have this problem of agricultural financing, and it is always going to be with us, until at some time the Government realizes that the only possible way in which they can solve the problem which faces agriculture to-day, is to institute an agricultural financing organization on a large scale. It must cover more than just the activities of the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Department, but must finance agriculture in a big way, so that we are not left with the position where a man, who is in a very sound financial position, cannot get finance from any source whatsoever. Unless we think big and the Government acts big in this matter, in that it creates an organization of the kind, whereby all agriculture throughout the country—not just the wool farmers, but every sector of the agricultural economy—is financially backed, at the present time, with capital at 6 per cent interest, the problems of agriculture will not be solved. I do not believe that this is a difficult task. I do not believe that there are difficulties that cannot be overcome. But it will mean that the Government will have to use their resources. They have many resources. They have economists, financiers, advisers and agricultural colleges that can advise them on these matters. If they really look into this matter, it can be properly controlled. I have no doubt that hon. members will ask me: If interest rates are brought down, what is going to happen to land prices? Will they not automatically go up? That could quite easily happen, but I believe there are methods of control that could get that situation very easily buttoned up. I would suggest that it be done on these lines. Where a farmer approaches the agricultural banking organization, which the Government should create, for assistance, that farmer should then understand that, before he can embark on another farming enterprise, buy another farm or increase his holdings, he shall redeem his debts to the Government. Then he can buy bigger farms and he can act as he wishes. But as long as he is indebted to the Government, and wishes to make use of the favourable interest rates which a person should be able to get from the Government, he must be obliged to farm his farm in terms of strict conservation practice. I am quite sure that, if controls on those lines are implemented, this question of the rising prices of land can be thoroughly controlled.

In conclusion therefore, I recommend that the Government investigate this matter very thoroughly and that they plan for the long term in order to try and get agriculture on to a sounder economic footing than it is now, because I believe very strongly that short-term patchwork can never solve the present ills of agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, something unusual occurred in this House of Assembly this week. We had the very pleasant privilege of welcoming three new members in one session, members who came here as a result of by-elections. All three of them came here as representatives of the National Party. These three gentlemen are from three constituencies which are constituted in such a way that they are true reflections of the average composition of the population of South Africa. Two of the hon. members were returned unopposed as representatives of the National Party. One of the new members, the hon. member for Pretoria (West), scored a brilliant victory for the National Party. I do not think this event may be allowed to pass unnoticed, because in these times it carries a specific message, in that it is a reaffirmation, after 20 years, of the mandate which the electorate of South Africa gave this Government and this Party to continue its policy of separate development and everything it brings along and includes. That is the message of this occurrence.

Why did you get 2,000 votes less?

If the hon. members derive joy from having drawn 1,100 votes in Pretoria (West) and from having received 17 per cent of the total poll, I do not begrudge them any of the joy they may derive from that. This does not only represent a reaffirmation of the mandate which was given to this Party and to this Government on so many previous occasions, but at this stage it is a personal triumph for the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to emphasize and confirm the following in view of the fact that various bodies and persons have tried to create confusion and doubt in the minds of the population, to bring the policy of the National Party under this Prime Minister under a cloud of suspicion, and that is that a crystal-clear pronouncement was given at Pretoria (West), and I say that this represents a personal triumph for the hon. the Prime Minister. It is more than that; it is the green light for the hon. the Prime Minister and for this Party and for this Government to proceed on the course taken.

Of doing nothing!

We will proceed on that course. If it is the choice of the electorate that we should do nothing. I want to tell hon. members this: They have now given us the mandate to proceed as we did for the past 20 years. We never had any intention of deviating from that course at all, but I repeat for that hon. member’s information, that what happened constitutes a reaffirmation of the things in which we are engaged.

Tell us something about the agricultural policy.

This carries a further message, namely …

The supporters of the United Party were too scared to fight an election in an agricultural constituency.

That message is that the outcome of this election in Pretoria (West) was a severe and crushing defeat for all splinter groups and bodies which seek to destroy and to deviate. It was a crushing defeat for those splinter parties born from slander, which possibly originated from hon. members in this House. [Interjections.] I am referring to hon. members of the Opposition. We too have done some detecting into the sources from which that slander originated. We have been in politics for a long time, and it comes from the Opposition members who sparked it off. [Interjections.]

During May this year the National Party will hold a country-wide congress here in Cape Town to commemorate its 20th year as the governing Party. Then we shall once again have the opportunity at that festival congress to look back over 20 years of National government. At each by-election the National Party will be returned to Parliament with greater force, because the National Party has been doing these things which are essential for South Africa throughout that period of 20 years.

What has it done?

I shall tell you very briefly what it has done. This Government and the National Party found the answer to that one weighty problem. We brought about a greater national unity. During this period of 20 years of National Party rule and government greater national unity was created between the two white language groups in South Africa than during any other period. The reason for that is the following: This Government had the courage of its convictions to remove those unnecessary constitutional points of difference which existed between these two white language groups. This Government gave South Africa one flag of which all of us are proud, and for which we are grateful to the Government for having given us that. This Government gave us one national anthem so that we may be recognized in the world as a nation with a national anthem. Issues like these were the things about which we quarrelled for many years in South Africa. During the 20 years it has been in power the National Party saw to the removal of these constitutional issues and in so doing ensured much greater national unity, in spite of severe opposition it often experienced from the side of the Opposition. During that period of 20 years the National Party Government brought about separation amongst the various colour groups and population groups, but also created opportunities for those population groups to be able to develop and grow on their own. In each sphere, whether in the sphere of culture, labour, or politics, the Government brought about separation and created opportunities for each population group to grow and develop. Because hon. members ask us what we have done during that period of 20 years, I want to say that the National Party Government has fulfilled the deepest desire of the people.

We have our own, independent Republic, to which we had aspired for so long, to which all of us belong to-day and of which all of us are proud. We experienced the most severe opposition from the side of the Opposition when we established the Republic. We are grateful that the Republic, after more than five years, has now been accepted by everyone who loves South Africa and bears goodwill towards South Africa. It was under the guidance of the late Prime Minister that South Africa quitted the black-dominated Commonwealth. I do not believe there is one well-meaning person in South Africa to-day who regrets that we no longer belong to that tottering, black-dominated Commonwealth. This is what the National Party Government has done. Therefore we shall have the opportunity of looking back at what has been established during this period of 20 years that the National Party has been governing this country. The National Party has seen to it that the people of South Africa, be they White, Coloured or Black, could retain their self-respect in this country, and that peace is prevailing in South Africa. While the National Party is governing it is building up good relations with its neighbouring states in Southern Africa, to a greater extent than that side of the House ever did while they were in power.

I contend that things in South Africa look different to-day than in the rest of Africa as well as in other countries in the world, because here in South Africa there is a National Party which has been in power for the past 20 years. I contend that if the United Party had remained in power for the past 20 years, the position would not have been as it is to-day. South Africa would not have had peace and would simply have been another African state with the chaos which prevails in them. We are fortunate and we are grateful that a National Party Government has been in power in South Africa for the past 20 years. What happened this week, when we were able to welcome three hon. members to this House, is the green light for the hon. the Prime Minister, our dynamic leader, to proceed with his policy and on the course he had taken.

It is not only in the constitutional field that the National Party has given South Africa what I have outlined here. Also in the sphere of agriculture the National Party has done more for the agricultural industry and in the field of soil conservation during these two decades than the Opposition ever did during the entire period they were in power. I find myself in very good company when I say this, because the farmers of South Africa think so as well. The farmers of South Africa have been of this opinion for the last 20 years already. It is interesting to know that there are 75 rural constituencies in South Africa, and that only six of them are represented by hon. members of the Opposition. Some of them, although they represent rural constituencies, live in urban areas. The farmers have therefore decided who is their friend, and who must look after them in this House. I want to say at once that I am not one of those people who suggests that the farmer only votes for the Government that offers him the greatest benefit. The farmer of South Africa votes National because he is clear-thinking. The farmer is prepared to make sacrifices, if necessary, to keep the National Party in power, only for the sake of the policy of the National Party. It is therefore not a matter of who can hand out most favours. I maintain that the National Party, after 20 years of governing, need not be ashamed of what it has done for agriculture. The National Party regards agriculture as the basis of the people, and has proved this over the past 20 years. Thanks to the sympathetic support of this Government, and the great powers of perseverance of the farmer—and where would you find anyone with greater powers of perseverance than the farmer of South Africa?—and thanks to the vitality of our agriculture, the agriculture of South Africa has all along succeeded in keeping pace with the needs of the fast-developing and growing population of South Africa. Agriculture has all along been able to keep pace as regards its primary aim, namely to produce food for the people, and, secondly, to provide raw materials for our secondary industries.

We on this side agree with the hon. member for Walmer, who is not here at present, that there are problems, and no one denies this. I do not think, however, that the root of the problem is higher rates of interest. I think we must look for the root of the problem in the conditions which force the farmer to take up loans from time to time. These are circumstances beyond his control. No government, and no minister of finance, can, in a year such as the present one, when the country is stricken by droughts, provide all the financial relief which we would otherwise have had if we had received the necessary rains from Heaven. It is true that good agricultural soil is very scarce and very limited in South Africa. It is true that there are very few fertile parts suitable for irrigation. It is true that there are few rivers in South Africa that can be dammed up so economically that irrigation is made possible. Therefore it is necessary that we should ensure the highest possible productivity in respect of all kinds of soil in South Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 90 and debate adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I dealt in detail with the arguments put forward by hon. members on the other side in support of this Bill. I came to the conclusion that they have not succeeded in producing even one good reason why the Coloured South African should not be represented in this House. In the few minutes left to me, I would like to emphasize the main reasons why we on this side of the House oppose the Bill. In the first instance we oppose it because all the officially elected representatives of the Coloured people in this House have expressed themselves firmly against the contents of this Bill.

The existing Coloured Council, appointed by the Government, has also expressed itself on no less than two occasions in favour of the principle that the Coloured people should be represented in this House. There can therefore be no doubt that it is the wish of the Coloured people that they should be represented in the highest body of the country. Secondly, we are opposed to this Bill because it abolishes all meaningful political rights for the Coloured community. What they get in return cannot be termed political rights in the proper sense of the word. Everywhere in the world the term “political rights” is taken to mean the right to vote for the highest authority in the country, and not the right to vote for a minor or the lowest authority. This Bill seeks to relegate the Coloured community, in this day and age, to the ranks of the politically voteless in respect of the Parliament of their own country.

Our further objection is that it will be seen and treated by the Coloured people as an injustice. The widespread feeling that they are being unfairly treated, will increase. This type of treatment has never, in the history of any country, done a country any good. We on this side of the House speak for 45 per cent of the white electorate of our country. As such we want to say to the Coloured people that we condemn this action of the Government, and take no responsibility for it whatsoever. We are living in times when strong emotional feelings are sweeping the non-white world everywhere. One need only read the latest news from America to see the devastation which can be caused by a senseless act towards a civil rights leader. I am not placing this Bill in the same category, but what I am suggesting is that, considering the climate, and how sensitive people have become everywhere over matters concerning civil rights, the removal of rights contained in this Bill is an act of grave irresponsibility and a disservice to the white people of South Africa. This Bill will also adversely affect our own Parliament. We are depriving ourselves here of the benefit of hearing the views and the voices of some 2 million citizens over whom this House is called to govern.

Parliament will be more unreal than ever. We will be more ignorant of the needs and the views of the people over which we must govern. I think that time will show that one of the greatest disservices this Government has done to South Africa, is to isolate Parliament from the realities of South Africa and make it less effective than a parliament should be. We are in fact damaging ourselves and our own interests. We are floating deeper into the fool’s paradise in which so many of our electorate already live.

Finally, this kind of legislation plays directly into the hands of those who seek our undoing abroad. In fact, on this very day a body of people backed by the United Nations are setting out to force their way into South West Africa for the purpose of creating atmosphere against South Africa. We should oppose them with all power at our disposal. But what is the Government doing? If ever there was ammunition for our enemies, they have it here in this very Bill, presented to them by the Government on a platter. I say that it is a tragedy that every time South Africa calls for the best in us, this Government produces its worst. Let it be quite clear that we on this side of the House recognize the fact that this is a country of diverse peoples. The Coloured community is a community with an identity of its own. There is no issue as far as that is concerned. Nothing can change the fact that we are diverse peoples, each with an identity of its own. Nobody seeks to undo that. But nobody tries to hide the fact that, apart from the differences that we have, Coloured and White have a common interest in the general well-being and administration of the country. Therefore we on this side of the House stand for political co-operation in matters of national and mutual concern. We therefore wish to register our strongest protest against this Bill and what it stands for. We shall do so in the firmest manner Parliament will allow.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat did what we expected he would do. He delivered an emotional and ardent plea for political integration. There is nothing strange about this, of course, because did not this hon. member, as far back as March of last year, long before the Commission brought out its report, make a plea before the Institute of Citizenship to have Coloureds in Parliament? In the Sunday Times of 18th April, 1967, we read the following heading under his own hand: “Coloured M.P.s a must.” At that stage already he pleaded for this political integration, even before the commission appointed by his own party to investigate the matter and before the commission of inquiry appointed by this House had brought out their reports. Therefore I think it is only right that I should say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that I sincerely congratulate him, because what he said has become the policy of his party. What he had said and advocated even before any commission brought out its report, they accepted at their congress in spite of the fact that he was overseas at the time. I really want to congratulate the hon. member on an exceptional achievement.

I now come to the legislation before the House, which the hon. member summarily wanted to sweep off the board. The facts which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout brought to our attention, immediately bring us to the choice before this House and this nation, the choice between political integration or separate political development and political evolution.

What does that mean?

Mr. Speaker. I was once a teacher, but I never had such dull children in my class. I now want to make the factual statement that the legislation at present before us, is true to the fundamental principles of the National Party and the principles of our policy as developed and stated through the years. As far back as 5th February, 1965, on the occasion of a debate on matters of colour and our relationships policy, Dr. Verwoerd put the policy of the National Party in a nutshell in this House (Hansard, col. 625). After discussing the policy of separation, he said the following: “The crux of the policy of separation is political separation.” That golden thread runs through our entire policy and is known to all. It is no secret. On this principle we have been sent to this House for 20 years. The crux of the policy of separation is political separation. But now I want to make it very clear that when we speak of separation, it is not separation for the sake of separation. It is not a rigid mechanism, a mechanism by means of which one merely regulates votes and so on. It has nothing to do with “the mechanics of government” which that side of the House elevates to a principle. We are dealing with a positive instrument for the development of the various population groups. The relationships policy which is propounded by us, and which is to be applied by means of this positive instrument of separation, is aimed at achieving harmony in the relationships between population groups. It is the harmony to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred, the harmony which does not exist in a certain major country today. Over the years all the population groups have come to accept this view and positive policy of the National Party to an ever-increasing extent. In this regard I need not refer to authorities in our own ranks. I need only refer to the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member absolves himself as follows in The Cape Argus of 1st December, 1967, and in a similar article in The Star of the 4th December, 1967—

This was one of the reasons why they had changed their policy. I take another witness from their ranks. He is the hon. member for Transkei, one of my colleagues on this Commission of Inquiry. In the course of this debate he told us the following—

We are now faced with these indisputable facts, the witnesses to which are the hon. members on the other side. Under these circumstances we should take note of a particular fact which has been denied on occasion by that side, but which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has again underlined and placed in the correct perspective. This is, firstly, that the Coloureds have their own identity and, secondly, that the Coloured also does not want integration. On page 135 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry we find that a Coloured leader, Mr. Petersen, uttered these particular words—

If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also underlines that evidence that they have an identity of their own and if the hon. member for Yeoville also underlined it in the article to which I referred, then we must, in the second place, accept another key principle in terms of which we must judge this legislation. That is that the Coloureds would like to see the Coloured Council as the true mouthpiece of the Coloured people. That is why the leader of the Kleurling Federale Volksparty says—

In other words, the Coloured Council must be the political centre of gravity of the political activities of the Coloureds. Now, it has been said in the course of this debate, by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well, that the Coloured Council is really a kind of provincial council. Such comparisons have been drawn in this connection, but this Council, which is very closely connected with the representation of the Coloureds, is no provincial council. It is an institution sui generis. Therefore it is a true mouthpiece. It is altogether different from the provincial councils of the Whites, which are integral parts of the government of the country. There are four of them, but the voice of the Whites is here in this House of Assembly. The Coloureds want a place where they also have their voice, and that is why this leader says, in other words, that the “real mouthpiece of the Coloured people” must be the place where the political centre of gravity lies. Evidence to this effect is repeated over and over again in the report.

It is against the background of these facts that we must judge this legislation. This legislation is true to the basic principles of the policy of the National Party. All that is happening now, is that in the political evolution of the Coloureds a further implementation of this basic principle is taking place. It is the principle which Dr. Verwoerd summarized in the words. “The crux of the policy of separation is political separation.”

What did he say about the Coloured representatives here?

I am dealing with fundamental matters. I shall reply to the hon. member for Durban (North) in a moment by means of his own words.

We therefore have the evidence that we have principles which we are implementing in accordance with the circumstances and new evidence which comes to light. I do not often go to the hon. member for Durban (North) for assistance, but I do want to say that in the course of this debate he uttered a truth on which I have to congratulate him. He said the following—

This great truth uttered by the hon. member is precisely the policy of the National Party. We have principles which are known to all and we implement them according to the circumstances prevailing and the evidence which becomes available from time to time.

Mention has also been made of the weight of the evidence. It has been said that the weight of the evidence was against the principles embodied in this legislation. Before dealing with the weight of the evidence, I again want to associate myself with an hon. member on the other side. The hon. member for Pinelands said in the course of this debate—

I want to say to the hon. member that this is a very sound and sensible statement of the Opposition. I also want to say to the hon. member that this definition which he gave of the evaluation of evidence he ought to give to his hon. Leader, because the latter also spoke of the weight of the evidence and made a little addition sum for us: 47 people appeared before the Commission, so many did this and so many did that. He did not consider “who gave it, what is the substance of the organization or institution which advanced that evidence”. I would therefore assume that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made his little addition sum he accepted the Black Sash, the Liberal Party, the Institute of Race Relations, the Christian Institute and so forth as important witnesses.

No, we are not dealing with little addition sums now. I am going to do precisely what the hon. member for Pinelands said we must do. I am going to evaluate the evidence according to the standards: who gave the evidence and with what weight did they speak? Who are those people? They are the representatives of the Coloured people themselves and of their political parties; they are authorities on the Coloureds; they are leaders amongst the Coloured people. Then we find that all this evidence indicates that continuation of the present system of representation is untenable and no longer desired. In other words, whether the representation is by Coloureds or by Whites, they are not satisfied with the present system. A change is being requested. Secondly, it has become very clear from the evidence that the system of direct representation in the House of Assembly leads to a political dualism, a dualistic political set-up which, if the present system should continue, would create an impossible situation.

Why would it do so? Firstly, because everyone wants to develop the Coloured Council into a mouthpiece for the Coloured people. Secondly, because they do not want that Council to be hampered by the kind of representation existing here. What do they say in this regard? All the witnesses say that they want a change, and then they say that an untenable position would arise, and I refer here to page 139 of the report, where it is tersely summarized for us by one of the witnesses, Mr. Fortuin, who says the following—

Mr. Dollie, a respected Coloured leader, says the same on page 50.

What is he a leader of?

He is a respected Coloured personality in the Cape Province. I want to say to the hon. member for Outeniqua that I am also going to quote him in a moment. On page 50 of the report we find Mr. Dollie’s memorandum, in which he puts the situation to us as a member of the Coloured Council, and if we look at all the positions in which he is serving and has served, it is clear that he is an exceptional personality. He says—

We can go on in this way with the witnesses, and then we get the Conservative Party, which says a further significant thing to us, on page 132. They say that they do not want two voices because they have only one mouth, and in addition they say that an untenable position has developed—

Another Coloured party submits the same evidence on page 147. I am now referring to parties which are here mentioning their problems with their representatives. They say—

Then we find evidence in regard to this impossible and untenable political dualism on page 319 as well, a political analysis of the situation as given by the former Secretary for Coloured Affairs, who came to the conclusion that we are faced with a dilemma. He said—

He was referring to the abolition—

But there was also a Coloured party which asked for direct representation, on a separate voters’ roll if necessary, but actually on the Common Voters’ Roll. This was the South African Labour Party, and I refer to page 123 of the report, where a particularly significant admission was made. I put certain questions to this witness. This was the question—

His reply to me was this—

This is what we are doing now, namely, coming forward with a solution. In this way we gained the impression from all these representative Coloured leaders that there was something wrong with a system of direct representation, that there was something wrong with political dualism, a politically untenable position. And what do they suggest? Throughout the evidence, like a golden thread, they realized this dilemma and sought a solution, and the solution which was put forward time and again was that the Coloured Council should become an electoral college to elect members of the House of Assembly to sit here—in other words, indirect representation. This is requested by the Conservative Party on page 12, the Federale Volksparty on pages 60 and 155, the E.P. Coloured People’s National Union on page 69, Rev. Engelbrecht, a respected leader of the Coloureds, on page 273, Mr. D. J. Johnson, a Coloured witness, on page 179, and no less a person than the hon. member for Outeniqua on page 88, as his considered opinion. I promised him that I would quote him, and I do so readily. This is what the hon. member said to us—

Which is different to the way he spoke a moment ago—

And this is happening now—

Thus we find throughout this evidence—and we are now dealing with the weight of the evidence—that the Coloured representatives are aware of the fact and realized that an impossible political dualism would develop and they want the centre of gravity of political representation to lie in the Coloured Council, and they suggest that it be made an electoral college. Others, again, appreciate the same dilemma and propose a limited franchise—I do not want to read all the evidence—such as the Rev. J. A. J. Steenkamp, who says that on certain matters they ought not to vote, such as motions of no-confidence, etc. There is also the Coloured witness, Mr. J. King, on page 68. Because all these witnesses feel that such a system of direct representation would militate against the development of the Coloured Council and the political evolution of the Coloureds in their own surroundings and in their own council, there is consequently only one solution which is fair and right towards the Coloureds and which he himself requested. According to the weight of the evidence, this is the abolition of this system which creates the problems. It is the only possible solution. We therefore have the choice between the sentimental retention of the historic position, and on page 141 Mr. Petersen also says in his evidence that people are attached to this representation because it has become of sentimental significance to them, and that the Government should act responsibly and accept the decision to create a new dispensation on the basis of positive separation, a dispensation which will in fact have political substance for the socio-economic and political development of the Coloured people. The weight of the evidence, as I said, is against direct representation. The alternative is then an electoral college. An electoral college is no longer relevant; it has not been proposed and it has constitutional implications which I do not want to discuss. The other alternative is then the abolition of this representation, and the development of the Coloured Council. Over against this we must place—this is the evidence which we have had—what the United Party offers the Coloureds.

The United Party offers the Coloureds two voters’ rolls, which absolutely divide the Coloureds, in spite of the evidence which is before us, and which was also given by the Conservative Party on page 131, where they adopt this strong standpoint—

The United Party is therefore offering these people something which is not justified by the weight of the evidence, and they are specifically creating what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition called “a hotbed of dissension”. But do you know, Sir, that the representatives of the United Party on this commission themselves felt so strongly about it that they came forward with such suggestions as one voters’ roll only, for elections for both this Parliament and the Coloured Council. Their suggestions can be found on page xxix. Then their Congress changed it. First they found that this was the weight of the evidence, but immediately afterwards they forgot about the weight of the evidence. Incidentally, the hon. member for Durban (North) was very concerned about the Senators. If he reads that proposal for which they voted, he will find that no provision was made for Senators. They were simply cast aside.

What does the United Party offer the Whites? It offers them political integration, but it is now seeking to achieve this political integration by way of a separate voters’ roll which still leads to integration. What the hon. member for Bezuidenhout pleaded for and what the United Party’s new policy is, the hon. member for Karoo gave us with prophetic vision: First representation of Coloureds by Coloureds, then Indians by Indians, then Bantu by Bantu and then the final U.P. heaven proffered to the nation, in the words of the visionary of the Karoo: “The merging of all groups onto a common roll.” Sir, what has been advocated on that side in this debate in this Parliament is the beginning of this matter, the beginning of political integration. Sir, we on this side stand by the policy as it has existed through the years, and I conclude by making this quotation; “The crux of the policy of separation is political separation.”

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus alleged that political integration, along the lines of a separate voters’ roll, was the policy of the United Party. I find it strange that that side of the House has made repeated attempts since 1948 to place the Coloureds on a separate voters’ roll without having had political integration in mind. The hon. member alleged that the weight of evidence was in favour of the removal of Coloured representation from Parliament. This side of the House has already dealt with that allegation. The hon. member quoted the evidence of the Conservative Party but I find it strange that the hon. member merely quoted certain extracts from page 132. Why did he not quote the following extract as well.

I have not read the entire report.

The hon. member has not read the entire report nor has he listened to the evidence before the Commission. I want to quote that extract which the hon. member did not quote—

And now follows the illuminating sentence—

And this was the statement on which the hon. member based his argument—

The hon. member started his quotation from the point where they said that they did not want two votes, but omitted the entire preceding portion.

Why do you not quote that portion in which they stated that they wanted to have a whole number of people here, people they called advocates, who had to be elected by them?

I concede to the hon. member that there were witnesses before the Commission who wanted representatives to sit in this Parliament, without their having been elected on a voters’ roll, but the fundamental point is that they still wanted representation in this Parliament. That is the important point. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus said that they could not put up with a condition of dualism; that one could not give the Coloureds representation in Parliament as well as a representative council which would develop on its own. Has the hon. member for Odendaalsrus forgotten about the 1948 election manifesto of the Nationalist Party? In 1948 they proposed a Coloured Persons Representative Council as well as representation in this House.

Was that direct or indirect representation?

It is strange that the idea of dualism has only presented itself to the hon. member at this stage. In the election manifesto of his Party of twenty years ago no mention was made of dualism. No, the hon. member as well as the hon. member for Randfontein is inclined to speak about the weight of evidence. To me the most outstanding evidence was that of Mr. Tom Schwartz as chairman of the Coloured Council. What did Mr. Tom Schwartz say on page 146? I do not want to quote that in full, because it is much too long, but from page 146 to page 148 he repeated no less than six times that the Coloureds wanted representation in this Parliament. He even went as far as saying that the Coloureds wanted their own people in Parliament. As far back as 1960—I have the cutting here—Mr. Tom Schwartz reacted to a speech made by the late Dr. Verwoerd, when he addressed the Coloured Council. Even in 1960 that was his attitude. He said—

They are in favour of direct representation. How much the more does the body of opinion amongst the average Coloured not favour the retention of their representation in this Parliament?

Is the United Party in favour of Coloured representation in Parliament by Coloureds?

Yes, the hon. member ought to know that. Hon. members opposite charged my hon. friend next to me with allegedly having said that it was the United Party’s policy to have Coloureds in Parliament but they were quite wrong in doing so. As long ago as 1961 it was decided at a congress of the United Party that Coloureds would have the right to sit in this Parliament if they were to receive the support of the electorate. That is the position. Therefore this is nothing new.

But did you say that during the election of 1966?

That hon. member knows that the change in the United Party’s policy was made as a result of the recommendation of a committee of investigation which we ourselves had appointed. The matter was duly submitted to our congress, and that congress accepted our policy to allow Coloureds to sit in Parliament after having been elected on a separate roll. That is no secret. It would not surprise me at all if the hon. member for Jeppes were to come to support that policy eventually.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate numerous arguments were advanced in justification of the step which is being taken to-day. If one goes through the debates conducted 17 years ago in this House when this House was considering legislation for placing the Coloureds on a separate roll, one finds that virtually the same arguments as those advanced in this debate were advanced in those debates. The argument was advanced that the Coloureds should be placed on a separate roll because, in the first place, they were being exploited and, in the second place, the Coloureds were not really interested in what was happening in the Parliament of the Whites: they were not very interested in the elections of the Whites and— the argument which the hon. the Prime Minister is so fond of using—only a small number of them had the franchise in any event. There was a lack of interest on the part of the Coloureds and consequently it would be a good thing to place them on a separate roll. Further the main argument was that this Parliament ought to be a parliament for Whites only, a parliament in which the White man would maintain his leadership. Precisely the same arguments are being used to-day for the removal of White representation from this Parliament for the Coloureds. There has been no change in the arguments of hon. members on that side during this period; there has only been a change in the cause. The same arguments which were used at that time in favour of a separate roll are now being used by hon. members opposite against a separate roll, and against White representation of the Coloureds, with this difference: At that time, in 1951, in 1954 and in 1955, when the big discussion of the Coloured vote was in progress in this Parliament, the Government had a mandate from the electorate. They did not in fact have a two-thirds majority, but they did have an instruction from the electorate, as expressed in their Parliamentary majority to place the Coloureds on a separate roll. I want to repeat that they did not in fact have the required two-thirds majority, but the fact that the Nationalist Party was in favour of a separate roll for the Coloureds had clearly been submitted to the electorate. In 1948 they obtained a small majority for the step. But the only step that was taken as regards this Bill now before this House was that it had been referred to a commission of enquiry for the commission to give the decisive answer. There has been no mandate from the electorate to remove the Coloured representatives from this Parliament. On the contrary, this matter was not even submitted to the electorate during the last election in 1966. I want to suggest that these changes which hon. members opposite are now proposing, have not even been submitted to their Cape Congress. The removal of Coloured representation from this Parliament is a matter which chiefly affects the Cape Province, but it has never been discussed by them at their Cape Congress. A decisive answer has never been given in this regard. At their last congress in Port Elizabeth supporters of the National Party argued about the Press, about their Party and about “verligtes” and “verkramptes”, but no decision was taken that Coloured representation had to be removed from this Parliament. Therefore I find it strange that Parliament has been presented with legislation in this way. Why has this change of policy not been conducted through the normal democratic party channels? For the simple reason that the Nationalist Party dare not submit this matter to their own supporters because of the fact that they are divided in their own ranks about this question of Coloured representation.

Make that an election platform and then we shall see what happens.

It has already been made an election platform. In 1963 an independent Nationalist, Mr. Daantjie Scholtz, was a candidate in the election of Coloured representatives. Mr. Scholtz opposed the hon. member for Karoo and what was his attitude in that election? I quote from what he said at Worcester on 8th October, 1963 (translation)—

The report continues—

Mr. Speaker, that was not said by a supporter of the United Party; it was said by Mr. Scholtz, an independent Nationalist candidate. Has the Nationalist Party taken any steps against Mr. Scholtz since that time? Has he been kicked out of the Nationalist Party, as the hon. member for Uitenhage kicked out some of his members in Uitenhage? No, he still is inside the ranks of the Nationalist Party and that still is his attitude, and he advocated that attitude from election platform to election platform in 1963.

That shows you how independent he was.

In the book written by the hon. member for Turffontein, he himself was in favour of Coloured representation here. And not only by Whites, but also by Coloureds. In the Cabinet as well. Therefore I maintain that the Nationalist Party is coming to Parliament with this legislation in this way, because they would not dare to have this legislation approved at a Congress, still less at an election. Therefore they did not submit this matter to the electorate either in 1966 or during any previous election. In addition I want to maintain that there is disagreement about this matter not only in the ranks of the Nationalist Party but also in their Press. That is why they have deemed it necessary to present this legislation in this way. In this connection I may refer hon. members to Die Burger and more specifically to Dawie. On 23rd November, 1960, Die Burger stated the following in its leading article, under the heading (translation) “The Future of the Coloureds”—

That is, to allow Coloureds into Parliament. Die Burger regarded that as the “thin end of the wedge of swamping and destroying the Whites”. He continued—

I can also quote what Mr. Willem van Heerden said in Dagbreek. As a matter of fact, he clearly said that the decision to leave the representation of the Coloureds in this House unimpaired had not been wrong. On 2nd October, 1966, he wrote (translation)—

This is another reason why this matter has not been placed before the electorate of South Africa. I can also quote to this House what Professor S. P. Cilliers said, and what Professor Du Toit of the University College of the Western Cape said. They want us to make closer contact with the Coloured. Therefore the Government will not dare to take this matter to the electorate and to ask the electorate for a mandate. The intellectuals amongst the Nationalist Party and their Press are divided about this matter. But hon. members themselves are divided about this matter— hence the way they have presented this legislation. Outside this House there is no extraordinary degree of enthusiasm for this step by the Government. The Coloured representatives in this House are not being regarded as a danger—as a matter of fact, a dangerous situation may develop by removing them. As justification for this step, it is being said that a separate body will be developed for the Coloureds. But from this body we shall continually hear critical voices because they cannot be heard here in this Parliament which will decide about their destinies. Therefore, when the argument becomes too thin, the Nationalist Party usually makes its voice thick. Where the advantages of separate representation have been held before the eyes of the population for decades and where this system is now to be rejected, every straw has to be grabbed at in justifying such a step. For years they have been telling the nation what a good thing it was that Coloureds should be represented on a separate roll. Mr. Speaker, by taking this step they are really moving a motion of no-confidence in their own policy of the past twenty years. Therefore I am not surprised that even the name of the late Dr. Verwoerd had to be mentioned in this debate and that is why it is being said that this representation was in any event not a step which the Government originally wanted. It was even said that this representation was an enforced compromise. But if one makes a study of the policy of the Nationalist Party, as laid down in 1948, it is very clear that the Coloureds were to have some form of representation here. It is quite correct that they proposed second class M.P.’s for the Coloureds. They would not be able to vote on motions of confidence and on matters relating to war. That was the original policy. They would be nominated by the Coloured Persons Representative Council. But the principle in question has always been that they would have representation in this House. That policy of the Nationalist Party was changed to the advantage of the country as a whole and of the Coloured specifically through a man like the late Mr. Havenga.

Did that receive your support?

The hon. member asks me whether that received my support; surely he knows what the situation was. Surely he knows that a major struggle was being waged in 1951 about the way in which this Government wanted to remove the Coloureds from the common voters’ roll. Their way disregarded the two-thirds majority. But the change proposed at that time by Minister Havenga to the original policy of the Nationalist Party which was that those people would be second-class representatives, that they would not vote on motions dealing with matters of confidence and participation in war, was of great advantage to the Coloured.

Did you support that?

Whether I or my Party supported that is not relevant. It was a good change and it was a good compromise. In order to find justification for the rejection of this compromise, everything must be dragged in. That is the reason for dragging in the name of the late Dr. Verwoerd and for alleging that he supposedly always favoured the removal of the Coloured representatives from Parliament. I trust hon. members opposite noted recently that statements were made by members of the Verwoerd family. Members of the Verwoerd family, as well as some of his friends, said they had no knowledge about it ever being the policy of the late Dr. Verwoerd to remove the Coloured Representatives from this Parliament. His own brother, Dr. Len Verwoerd, stated in public that he regarded Dr. Verwoerd as a sincere man who revealed his intentions in an honest way in public. In other words, the late Dr. Verwoerd never was of the opinion publicly or privately that Coloured representation had to be abolished in this House. I want to refer the hon. the Minister of the Interior to a letter written by Dr. Verwoerd to Mr. Robert Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia. Mrs. Verwoerd was prepared to reveal this correspondence. This letter was published in Die Beeld of 22nd October, 1967. I do not want to quote the entire letter in full, but I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the late Dr. Verwoerd gave an exposition in this letter of his policy in respect of the Coloured representatives in this House. If it were the intention of the late Dr. Verwoerd to remove the Coloured representatives from this House, he would have alluded to that in this letter. But what did he do? He even went as far as saying that immediate consideration could not be given to representation by Coloureds, but that it was a possible alternative in the future. One principle which had been accepted was that “as the Coloureds succeeded in the matter of government, on a more local level, their further progress will be undertaken. We cannot be rushed along as was done in the Congo.” The late Dr. Verwoerd held out the prospect of representation by Coloureds in this House as something for the future. The late Dr. Verwoerd apparently consulted the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs in this matter. He apparently also consulted the hon. the Minister of Defence in this matter. Was the hon. the Minister who is in charge of the present legislation also consulted in this matter? Does he too have any knowledge about that? He ought to tell us in this debate whether he, as well as other members of the Cabinet, except the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Defence, has any knowledge about this. Why does the hon. the Prime Minister have no knowledge about this? Why are these two hon. members the only people who know that what Dr. Verwoerd really meant was that the Coloured representatives were to be removed from this House in the course of time? The hon. the Minister of the Interior has the opportunity now of telling us whether he too was in the inner circles when this matter was discussed. It is strange that when he introduced this legislation he did not advance this argument. It would have been a very strong argument had the hon. the Minister of the Interior also been in the inner circles and had known about the consideration that the Coloured representatives were to be removed in the course of time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have now for almost twelve hours been discussing this legislation, which provides for the removal of the Coloured representatives in this House. I do not think this was too long, and I admit that it is not a matter which a government undertakes lightly, without considering very thoroughly what it wants to do, why it wants to do it, and whether it is not only in the interests of one section of the population, but also in the general interest. The Government inevitably considers all the pros and cons of a Bill and how it affects everyone. Therefore I think it is fair to allow a considerable period of time for discussing and debating this Bill. I do not intend to reply to the debate at this stage. However, I want to express my disappointment with the many arguments that were raised, but that actually contained nothing. The arguments mainly took the form that one person had said this and another person had allegedly said that, or that someone in the past had said this, and another that. I do not think that these arguments bring us to the essential principles contained in the Bill under discussion. The last speaker said that the National Party did in fact tell the people in its manifesto in 1948 that the Coloureds would be removed from the common voters’ roll and would be placed on a separate roll. That was what the National Party envisaged. He also said that the late Dr. Malan had had completely different ideas at certain times. Reference was made to what Dr. Malan had allegedly said in 1921.

1948.

All right, in 1948. That hon. member quoted the late Dr. Malan, the former Prime Minister, and said that Dr. Malan had not mentioned certain things we are doing now. I now want to ask the hon. member what the policy of the late General Smuts was in 1948, and where he stood in relation to the policy which is at present accepted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and has been stated by him as being the official policy of the United Party. I know, and the people know, that in 1948 the United Party, after their defeat in the general election, held a post-mortem to determine the reasons for that. It was then generally admitted and accepted that the late Minister Hofmeyr was the main cause of the defeat the United Party had sustained. He had allegedly said, in a speech he made in the Strand before 1948, that the day had to come that Coloureds would have to be represented by Coloureds, and Indians by Indians, in this House.

He did not say that.

Minister Hofmeyr did say that. When he advocated this in those days and said it was his conviction that it would come—and he was, after all, the senior Minister in the United Party Cabinet—it gave rise to so much opposition on the part of the entire people, including the supporters of the United Party, that it was the basic reason why the United Party lost the election in 1948. Now the hon. member for Newton Park comes along and very piously refers to what Dr. Verwoerd had allegedly said. Another hon. member made an interjection and said that it was scandalous that the name of Dr. Verwoerd had been drawn into this debate in this way. Who are the people who dragged in the name of Dr. Verwoerd? It was the Leader of the Opposition, who opened this debate. He took a firm stand against this legislation because we had allegedly thrown Dr. Verwoerd’s policy overboard. Dr. Verwoerd’s name was not dragged in here by my colleague the Minister of Defence. His name was dragged in by the Opposition. This is perfectly natural. I do not take it amiss of anybody if he should refer to the late Dr. Verwoerd. I think, however, that the best opportunity to deal with this matter properly and in all fairness, and also to reply to the hon. members’ question in respect of the relations between Dr. Verwoerd and myself, will probably be when we have time for my full reply. Mr. Speaker, I therefore move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.