May I have the privilege of the other half-hour? When we discussed this Vote on Friday, there were four speakers on the other side who spoke. Two reponded to the speeches made from this side, and the other two speakers, the hon. member for Gordonia and the hon. member for Pretoria (District), discussed other very important subjects here, but their speeches had nothing to do with the position of agriculture in South Africa in general or with the position of the farmer. In other words, they did not react at all to the fact that we maintain that the farmer’s position in general, with exceptions, is bad and that he is not doing well. The hon. member for Winburg did react to it and made the statement here that the farmers in the country were doing very well. He is unfortunately not here at the moment. I want to suggest that that is not the position. Year after year we have drawn the Government’s attention to the position of the farmer and year after year we have indicated that the farmer is not doing well at all. We shall continue to do so; it is in the interests of the farmer and of the country that we continue to point out to the Government that the farmer is doing badly, and we shall continue to tell the Government what they should do to improve the position. In the past we have often made suggestions in this House in connection with agriculture in general, and eventually, after a great struggle, the Government accepted some of our suggestions.

You are a joker.

The hon. the Minister says that we are jokers. I want to point out to him that the development of the Orange River is very important to agriculture, and those development plans were put forward in the time of the United Party Government, under the late Senator Conroy. Senator Conroy planned a dam near Bethuli, to be fed from the Orange River. He planned a51-mile tunnel to convey water to the eastern parts, he planned a canal to Britstown and even to the Sak River, just as is being done now. After that the late Mr. Tom Bowker introduced a motion in this House every year for the Government to develop the Orange River, but the Government told us that it was totally impracticable, that it was impracticable to convey water to the eastern parts by tunnels and that it would be too expensive. They told us that it would cost £70 million. What is that same scheme going to cost now? It is going to cost approximately R240 million. First they told us that it would be too expensive and that it was impracticable. If they had only acted on the advice of the United Party then, we would have had a much cheaper scheme than what it is going to cost now.

Twenty years of procrastination.

We suggested that farmers pay income tax on their average incomes over a period of five years in view of the fact that their incomes varied so much. After years of struggle with the Government it eventually came forward with something similar and accepted our recommendation.

Something much better.

This side of the House introduced a motion here about five years ago in which we asked the Government to appoint a commission to investigate the agricultural industry in South Africa. We were convinced that it was absolutely necessary. The hon. the Minister bluntly refused that request, but fortunately the farmers of his own party realized that we were right and compelled him to appoint that commission.

Are you prepared to accept the commission’s report?

We have already replied to that question.

I have not yet heard any reply.

The hon. the Minister has heard our reply. We shall study that report properly and accept all those recommendations which are in our opinion in the interests of South Africa. And we believe that the majority of them will be. Mr. Chairman. I repeat that many branches of agriculture in this country are not doing well. The wheat farmer is complaining; the maize farmer is complaining; the wool farmer is having a hard time, and so are the sugar farmer, the pineapple farmer and the citrus farmer. The majority of the farmers are making a poor living and many of them are not making a living at all.

As far as the wool industry is concerned, I want to quote what appeared in Die Burger last week (translation)—

The report then goes on to say—

He then went on to refer to the great role played by agriculture. We have already referred in this House to the fact that two members of the House of Assembly from the eastern parts said outside that they thought that 60 per cent of our farmers were on the verge of bankruptcy. However, the strange thing is this. Hon. members who know the position in which the farmers find themselves, as well as other people, will say these things outside when discussing farming matters, but in this House they are not prepared to say to the Government: “Look, this is the position of the farmers and you must do something about it.”

But what is your solution?

Just be a little patient. There is great dissatisfaction among the maize farmers, and rightly so. They are dissatisfied about the prices. The hon. member for Ladybrand said that they were satisfied, but they are not satisfied, and they have reason to be dissatisfied. Even our fruit farmers are dissatisfied. I have here a report which deals with our fruit farmers. It appeared in the Farmer’s Weekly under the heading, “Clingstone Peach Growers Suffer Big Losses”, and reads as follows—

I repeat: “Some farmers are considering uprooting peach trees this winter.” This shows one in what position they find themselves. What must that farmer do when he has gone that far? He must plant another tree or something else and it takes years before it comes into production. In what difficult position will he not find himself when that time arrives one day?

The sugar farmers are also having a difficult time. Here is a report under the heading, “Sugar Growers lost over R1 million”, and it reads as follows—

So one can go on and it is clear that large sectors of the agricultural industry are doing badly.

As far as the maize industry is concerned, we heard from the hon. member for Ladybrand about the fixing of prices and that he was completely satisfied with it, and so on. However, last year the farmers were also tremendously dissatisfied about the decrease in the maize price. Unfortunately the hon. member for Ladybrand is not here now, but he agreed with them at the time and said that the price should not be decreased. Yet, when he came here to this House he said, no, it was right, it could be decreased. To-day he again said here that the price was right and that the farmers should not get more than last year. To tell the truth, they will now get a little less. The farmers’ production costs have increased all along. The prices of tractors have increased tremendously in the meantime. Labour costs have also increased. As a result the farmers’ production costs have increased and one wonders how the maize price is being fixed now.

What is your price; what do you recommend? R5 a bag?

Members on this side of the House are completely responsible people and they will not say that. I shall come to that point later. [Interjections.]

Order!

One wonders how the price of the mealie crop can be fixed. We on this side of the House believe that, in terms of the Marketing Act, the production costs should be worked out precisely. Then the farmer must receive an entrepreneur’s wage so that he can make a living.

Must this be done under the Marketing Act or the maize scheme?

The Marketing Act. Now I want to know how the maize price is fixed. If the crop is very large, the Minister dereases the price and says: Your production is higher. You can afford to receive less. [Interjections.]

Order!

This year the mealie crop is almost half of what it was last year, and the Minister is decreasing the price even further. How is one to comprehend this? On what basis must one fix a price? The farmers are not satisfied with the prices, and they cannot make a living. They have a right to be dissatisfied. Not one representative on that side of the House will get up and say that this is not the case. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that I can hear nothing of what the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) is saying, because hon. members are all speaking at the same time.

The National Mealie Committee of the South African Agricultural Union met the representatives of the Mealie Board and the Marketing Council on 19th March. The existing price of R3.3O was used as a starting point and all representations necessitating adjustments either way were considered. The National Mealie Committee specially stressed the production costs, the increase in the real buying power of the country, the much smaller crop this year, the better prospects on the foreign markets, and so on, which necessitated their asking for a price increase. A definite price was not mentioned, but if all the factors are expressed in rands and cents, the proposed price comes to just over R3.50. This is what the National Mealie Committee of the South African Agricultural Union said. I have reason to believe that they are responsible people. I have reason to believe that the leaders of our South African Agricultural Union are responsible people. I have reason to believe that they would not propose prices which would embarrass this Government. I believe that the prices which they recommended were prices which they had considered thoroughly, which they had worked out thoroughly, which they think the farmers actually deserve and which they need to make a living. According to the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the other side of the House, all the farmers’ difficulties are due to droughts and excessive prices which they pay for land. The droughts play a part, they have played a part, and they will continue to play a part, but we must remember one thing. The income of the farmer must be such that when he suffers losses as a result of drought, he should be able to cover those losses from profits which he makes in good years. If that is not the position, he cannot make a living. He must be able to cover his losses. Therefore his prices must be fixed in such a way that his financial position will enable him to bridge his losses as a result of droughts. Therefore we must realize that droughts always occur. We cannot just hide behind a drought all the time. As far as the high price of land is concerned there are farmers who paid high prices for land, but there are many farmers in this country who did not buy land in recent years, who inherited land or obtained relatively cheap land. There are many farmers who amassed some capital in the time of the United Party. [Interjections.] As a result they were able to buy land. Those farmers do not have land which is too expensive. Therefore they do not form part of this group. I am quite prepared to admit that there is in fact a small number of farmers who bought expensive land and who bought it on credit. They are in particular difficulties and can easily go to ruin. But they are a small proportion. They are not the only ones who are in difficulties at present, because there are many other farmers who are in the same position.

Sometimes one thinks that the hon. the Minister, because he lives in a particularly good agricultural region…

It is the only part of the country which is suffering drought at present.

I shall come to that. Because he is farming in a particularly good part of the country, where there are no large costs involved in overcoming periodic droughts and because he is, I think, a capable farmer, he does not realize the difficulties of the farmers in the other regions. A prominent farmer of Bredasdorp said to me last year that his sons had said to him, “Dad, we are having a hard time of it. We cannot go on like this”. Then he said: “But chaps. I cannot understand you. When I farmed here I made progress. I got some capital together and bought an additional piece of land on which you are also farming to-day”. The sons replied: “Dad. when you were farming, we had another Minister of Agriculture”. The main point is that we had another Government. As a result he was able to get ahead and make provision for himself. That is the difference. We had another Minister of Agriculture and another Government, the United Party Government.

Over and above the tremendous increase in production costs, there is a new interest rateon mortgages now. The interest rate on Land Bank mortgages is not much higher. The small number of people who have been assisted by the Department of Agricultural Credit and and Land Tenure have a reasonably low interest rate to pay. But the other people who have mortgages or debts with other financial institutions must pay 9 to 10 per cent interest to-day. I recall that the hon. the Minister said in the Other Place about five years ago that the farmers were not even making 3 per cent on their capital investment. Those were his words. Since five years ago production costs have increased tremendously, and the increase in prices has not kept pace with it; in other words, the farmer cannot even make 3 per cent on his investment now. He will make very much less than he did at that time. In addition there is this high interest rate, and as a result the farmer cannot make a living. It is no wonder that the M.P.s of the Eastern Province say that 60 per cent of them are on the verge of bankruptcy.

Farming is no longer a simple matter today. To-day it is a specialized undertaking which one must be thoroughly conversant with, and the farmer must have an intensive knowledge of the agricultural industry. We find that only about 20 per cent of our young farmers who enter agriculture have had any training in an agricultural college. We must see to it that sufficient facilities are provided for all the young farmers to be able to receive that training. We must encourage them and, if necessary, assist them to receive that training in order to make better farmers of them.

But you closed down all the colleges in the old days.

That old story about the colleges which were closed down we have heard so many times. The hon. the Chief Whip knows that they were closed down during the war when there was a shortage of manpower. They were closed for a short period in the interests of South Africa. We re-opened them. That argument does not apply now. Research is of the utmost importance for all branches of agriculture in this country. We need it for our wool industry; we need it for our livestock industry—for all sectors of agriculture. The researchers of this country are equal to those of any other country. I refuse to be told that our researchers have to take second place to those of any other country. But there are simply not enough of them, and therefore we must make the necessary provision to train more of them. I read recently that as far as our wheat industry is concerned, we had improved by only 14 per cent in the last decade. That. Mr. Chairman, is not good enough. The same applies to our maize industry. As far as our wool industry is concerned, I read recently that Dr. van der Wath had said that we were “child’s play” compared with Australia and New Zealand. As I say. we therefore need more research in all fields. We need more research into, for example, kidney disease….

But the research is being done.

I know it is being done, but are we doing enough? Can we not accelerate it? And as far as the caterpillar plague is concerned, it gets worse every year. Research in this connection is of the utmost importance and very, very necessary. As far as veterinary surgeons are concerned, we have a tremendous shortage. I think it is calculated that livestock to the value of R20 million die every year. Since we need more veterinary surgeons, even if it is only to bring that loss down to R10 million, can we not spend much more than that at present to train the necessary veterinary surgeons?

Those animals that die, do they die as a result of disease or as a result of lack of control?

If it is poor control, then it is our duty to give our farmers the necessary training. It is our duty to supply the necessary knowledge to the farmer, knowledge which they do not have to-day. We must do this on a much larger scale than at present. Then we must create the necessary facilities for the training of more veterinary surgeons, and once we have trained them, their conditions of service must be such that they will remain in the service of the Department of Agriculture, and will not leave that service and go to the cities to attend to dogs and cats.

We also need more extension officers. We need them to convey the knowledge which is acquired by research to the farmer. At the moment we have one extension officer for every 750 farmers. By comparison the small Rhodesia, with all her troubles, has one for every 45.

Where must we find them?

“Where must we find them?”, that hon. member asks. We must find them among the young people when they leave school. There is no difficulty in finding them if we want to pay them enough. We must just pay them enough and train them. I say that extension officers are a basic essential in this country. We have far too many young people who do not have the necessary knowledge of agriculture because they did not have the necessary training. Therefore it is urgently necessary that we convey this knowledge to them along these channels. At present we are in fact using magazines and the radio for this purpose, but we are seeing that in practice this is not effective. I say that we must concentrate upon the services of extension officers to convey information to the farmer.

Then the farmer is also, faced with a shortage of labour, and this increases his production costs. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development has now become active. Here in the Western Cape there are simply not enough Coloureds to do the work on the farms. In fact, you encounter this labour shortage wherever you go. I have here an article entitled “Farmers want labour repatriation move reviewed”—

The article then goes on to explain what the farmers’ difficulties are. I say that it is absolutely essential to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of labour. Under the policy of this Government the farmers are already faced with a shortage, and this pushes up their production costs. It is time that this Government took steps to train labour. Losses in machinery, for example, are tremendous because unskilled labour is used in the handling of it. Therefore I say that it is absolutely essential that we should train our labour to a greater level of efficiency so that we can assist the farmer to reduce his production costs.

In addition our farmers are handicapped in that they lack the necessary credit facilities. The hon. member for Harrismith may have them, but the others do not. To combat inflation, the farmer must pay a higher interest rate to-day. We are of course in agreement with the Government that inflation must be combated. But we say that the farmers are not the cause of inflation, and therefore they must not pay the price of it. They must therefore be assisted where they are so hard hit by these increased rates of interest. Their credit with the banks, the co-operatives and the shops is being curtailed. What is more, the farmer is no longer sufficiently creditworthy to-day. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is too chary of assisting these people. I am of course not saying that everyone must be assisted, but the Department is too chary of granting assistance in cases where assistance is justified. The principle of the Act in terms of which that Department was established, was to consolidate debts. When a farmer is being pressed by some creditor or other, his debts should be consolidated in order to help him out of his difficulties in that way. [Time expired.]

The United Party seems to me to be suffering from high blood-pressure, and one wonders whether the hon. the Prime Minister and his Minister of Agriculture will have sufficient facilities to cure the United Party of its high blood-pressure, because the difficulty is that if one lowers the high blood-pressure, it immediately changes to low blood-pressure.

I think you had better cut their throats.

Perhaps that is the best solution. The United Party goes from one extreme to the other and, worst of all, if it ever acts for a while, it is so much inclined to switch to irresponsibility. An Opposition should at least first prove to the population that it will be able to carry out its plans and the advice that it gives, and that it is not simply holding a political auction here. Let us just look back at what has happened. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the fact that we were celebrating after 20 years in power. I am not going to elaborate on those 20 years, but allow me to refer back to our position 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, if one were to tell the world that we would not sell our gold to England, there would have been big trouble. If one dared to say 20 years ago that one would sell one’s gold on the open market, the United Party would have had a fit. How were we not scoffed at in the years when the National Party began to sell our agricultural products to other countries besides England, when the first trade agreement was concluded with Germany. But what was much worse was when the National Party entered into the first agreement with Italy, with the result that our agricultural products no longer had to be transported directly to England, but directly to Europe. Do hon. members remember the quarrel there was about the Italian shipping agreement, and again when we entered into a trade agreement with Japan? It was almost the end of the world when we began trading with countries other than England, but now the United Party is saying that we have too few markets and that we must find other markets in the world. But what is even worse is that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at present, the United Party is making a complete switch in the other direction, so that it will eventually lose all the sympathy of the taxpayer. We should compare what was said by the hon. members for Walmer and Newton Park. The hon. member for Walmer said that they were sick and tired of subsidies. The hon. member for Newton Park said that they based their entire policy on subsidies. What does this add up to? First of all the Government should subsidize all Land Bank mortgages by two per cent, and after the drought has lasted for a certain length of time that subsidy should be given to the population of the drought-stricken areas in general. Can one imagine an urban party that wants to get into power making such irresponsible statements?

What was done in 1934?

The situation was completely different then. Subsidies were never granted on this basis. No subsidy of 2 per cent was granted to the Land Bank on this basis.

I lived through that period and I can tell the hon. member that he is not right. Now the hon. member wants all this subsidizing to take place in the areas which suffered dought. What will it amount to? I take it that the hon. member for Newton Park made no calculation at all as to what all this would cost. The suggestions being made here are completely irresponsible ones. In the first place the United Party must prove to these people that its proposals are such responsible ones that it will be able to implement them if it should get into power.

May I ask a question?

No, the hon. member refused to reply to my questions. Why should I allow him to ask questions now? Reference was made to the war years and the hon. member for Gardens spoke about maize prices. At what price was maize sold to England during the war years? At what price was meat sold, and at what price was our wool sold? In the time of the United Party there was only one market and that was England. Our wool was sold for a nominal amount at the expense of South Africa, and the same goes for maize. [Interjections.] The hon. member for East London City is sure to know what the wool prices were at the time. Those products were sold at the expense of South Africa, but these are now the people who are seeking markets for South Africa. These are the people who are pleading for other markets now. We referred hon. members to the Marketing Act on a previous occasion. Where does the Marketing Act mention anything like cost-plus. As yet they have failed to tell us. The hon. members say that their price policy is one of cost-plus. Have the hon. members ever taken the trouble of studying the way in which maize prices are fixed? If they had, they would not have come here with this story of cost-plus in connection with the price of maize. Unfortunately the hon. members of the United Party have never examined the method adopted in fixing the price of maize. But afterwards they always cast reflections on the farmers as being inefficient. I should just like to refer to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Recently, at Swellendam, he made the statement referred to by the hon. member for Gardens in connection with soil conservation, and he said that it was no longer a mere 300,000 tons of soil that was being lost, but that, according to certain information, 600,000 tons was being washed away to the sea.

A million.

Yes, a million tons. Where does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition get such figures? I submit that no two persons in the country will arrive at the same figure in calculating the amount of soil erosion taking place.

They say that at the moment it is twice as much as in the past.

Such a calculation has only been made once, i.e. in 1954, by the University of the Witwatersrand. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that this is the first occasion on which it is my privilege to address this House, I should like to pay tribute at the outset to my predecessor, the late Mr. Gideon Knobel. The constituency of Bethlehem knew him not only as a representative, but also as someone who served their interests in the true sense of the word, and because of the very fact that he served their interests so faithfully, his image will never fade in our memories and this characteristic of his, which is worthy of emulation, will never be forgotten. Allow me to address a single word of tribute also to his wife, Mrs. Esther Knobel, who has always, I am told, made a positive and practical contribution in parliamentary circles.

Mr. Chairman, as it is my responsibility now to represent the constituency of Bethlehem and in view of the fact that I am the youngest member of this House at the present time, I should like to take the liberty this afternoon of asking hon. members of this House to shape and mould me so as to enable me to be of service not only to those whom I represent, but also to this country and nation of ours which we all love so dearly. In the course of my maiden speech I shall refer to a few factors which are not directly concerned with the agricultural industry, but I take the liberty of doing so in view of the fact that our soil, which falls under the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Ministers, is the source and foundation of any development, of any industry, in this country. The constituency of Bethlehem has made its contribution to the development of South Africa in the past, and because it is a rural constituency, one would have expected that it would have made its contribution in the field of agriculture only, but it has also made its contribution in other fields. As a result of the geographic situation of the Eastern Free State, this region has become an important point and an important link in our national transport pattern, especially in the Railways system. Accordingly I represent a large number of railway officials, people who do not enjoy sufficient status with the general public for the services which they are rendering and which they sometimes have to render under less pleasant working conditions.

But the Eastern Free State has also made its contribution to the tourist industry. The Golden Gate Highlands Park has developed into one of the most sought-after holiday resorts in the country, not only on account of its scenic attractions, but also on account of its climate. To-day it attracts not only local tourists, but also tourists from various overseas countries.

Mr. Chairman, when I say that the constituency of Bethlehem has already made its contribution, I am not suggesting that this region has reached the peak of its development. At present this region is ripe for further development, not only development in the field of agriculture, but also development which will provide more and better employment opportunites to the young people in the rural areas, so that we may have in the rural areas not only the stability of the older generation, but also the flexibility of the working power of the youth. Owing to its strategic situation, that region can develop into an important power point in military strategy, especially as regards air defence, particularly when one has regard to the fact that the region is situated next to an area, a state, over the growth and development of which we have no control. It will be possible to integrate the question of air defence with the question of air transport for tourists who come to that region, to see the scenic attractions. Bethlehem as a rural constituency also has its possibilities as far as agriculture is concerned. One realizes, however, that development and potential also cause problems to arise, as problems have already arisen in the constituency of Bethlehem.

This afternoon I want to plead with the hon. the Minister for the young farmer, and my reason for doing so is not that the young farmer is the only one who is vulnerable, but I am doing so because he is the one who is most vulnerable and because the young farmer is the very person whom we want to keep content in the rural areas, as he is the one who will have to conserve the soil and who will have to provide food and clothing in the future. I have no intention of belittling the importance of industries and mining in the national economy of South Africa. Nevertheless I consider it necessary to draw attention to the perceptible trend of a desire to undertake so many aspects of developmental planning with the attention focussed on certain industrial concentrations, including the mining industry, whilst disregarding the rural areas. The steps taken by the authorities up to this stage for the promotion of systematic development, whether on the wide national front or on the more narrow regional and communal front, are observed with a great deal of interest and receive wide support. There is, however, an apparent trend on the part of many experts in this field to allow the purely physical considerations to outweigh the important aspects of the wider spectrum of elements in the national economy.

You may well ask, Sir, how this has any connection with the young farmer. The connection I see is that economic planning and guidance to the farmer and the young farmer cannot be slowed down and that we shall have to extend this planning and the guidance to the young farmer in the economic field as rapidly as possible in the future. We are grateful for what the hon. the Minister and the Department are doing in respect of production, economy and planning in this connection; we are also grateful for the funds which are being utilized so as to enable them to function properly, but we also want to admit that the farmer is not making full use of this Department. It is only human that the farmer will have more confidence in the official whom he sees every day and whom he knows, and consequently I want to ask whether it is not possible to extend this economic guidance. One realizes that it will not be possible straight away to model this economic guidance along the same lines as technical guidance, but is it not possible perhaps to commence by extending this economic guidance to the agro-ecological regions and to extend it further after that has been done? We are grateful for what the agricultural economists did and are still doing in this connection, but economic planning is of inestimable value to lhe young farmer and to the farmers who are in the initial stages of developing a pattern for their farming operations. We are living in times in which mechanization has become essential, and in this field which requires large capital investments, economic planning and guidance will be of great benefit to the young farmer.

There is yet another matter, although it does not fall under this hon. Minister, in regard to which I want to make a further plea for the younger farmer. When one studies the report of the Agricultural Bank, one finds that a heavy burden rests on the younger farmer. An analysis of the mortgage insurance scheme shows that only 12 farmers under the age of 30 years have died since 1955. The claims in this connection amounted to R91,368. The total number of deaths was 3,356, and the claims paid amounted to R 17,470,050. In this connection I should like to make representations for an adjustment to be made in order to lighten the burden of the young farmer.

Mr. Chairman, under this hon. Minister the agricultural industry has made rapid and sound progress. To-day the agricultural industry is one of the mainstays of the national economy; in addition 90 per cent of our soil falls under Agriculture, and thus one of man’s most important responsibilities is entrusted to the farmer. The farmer has already been instructed to increase his production, but I wonder whether the farmer has been sufficiently instructed in the effective utilization of the funds derived from such higher production, and for that reason I plead for extended economic guidance for our farmers. I have confidence and I believe that the farmer of to-day, and particularly the young farmer will maintain this mainstay of our national economy. One also knows that the farmer has accepted the responsibility of conserving our soil. Therefore if we educate the farmer, if we assist the farmer and if the farmer is compensated, he will never lag behind, but he will see to it that the agricultural industry will be one of the mainstays in the development of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasant task to congratulate the hon. member for Bethlehem on his maiden speech. He said he is the youngest member of this House. May I say he spoke with the assurance of youth and I am certain he will make a big contribution to debates in this House. One subject which he touched on, which is one dear to my own heart, is that of the development of air transport in the rural areas. I think this is one subject perhaps where he and I in the future might see eye to eye. It is very obvious that the hon. member knows the conditions in his constituency very well. He succeeded a man who was highly respected and well liked in this House. I am not going to wish the hon. member a long stay in this House but I do wish him a happy stay. I know he will be respected in much the same way as his predecessor was.

I want to come back to the remarks of the hon. member for Christiana. He said it appeared that the Opposition was suffering from high blood-pressure. Judging by the amount of time the hon. member spent on events which took place some 25 years ago. I think the hon. member is in danger of becoming mummified by his memories of the past. The farmers of to-day are really no longer very interested in what went on in the early 1940s. They have urgent problems to contend with, and if I may carry the similes the hon. member used about blood-pressure a little further, I would say one of the big problems of our agriculture to-day is that it is suffering from pernicious anaemia due to the lack of long-term Government policy as far as agriculture is concerned. It is because of this that our farmers have got to come for assistance to the Government for short-term measures to get them out of the difficulties that they have got in during 20 years of Nationalist rule.

On Friday the hon. member for Winburg made a statement to which I take exception because it was stupid, irresponsible and, what is more, not true, because he said we of the Opposition, “probeer die indruk skep dat landbouers non aalmoese soek”. We never said anything of the sort, in fact last year we said very clearly that the farmers were being forced into a position because of the Government’s pricing policy where they had to come cap in hand to the Government for short term measures to help them out of their difficulties. After all, why is it that for months now, delegation upon delegation has had to come to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and to other Ministers for alleviation of their difficulties? Yet that hon. member still says it is going well with our farmers. It started off with a delegation to the hon. the Prime Minister himself. It was a delegation from the S.A.A.U. which was led by their president, Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers, in November of last year. What did they ask for? Among the things they asked for they asked that the Government should subsidize the high interest rates which are causing severe hardship among large sections of the country’s farmers. There was also a delegation from the National Woolgrowers’ Association, people who in the past did not come running to the Government continuously for assistance. They tried to be independent, they tried to paddle their own canoe, they tried to stand on their own feet. As was said at the congress of the National Woolgrowers’ Association in Bloemfontein last year, “the farmers could not afford the high interest rates, and matters were heading for a disaster similar to the one experienced in 1933”. Yet hon. members on that side of the House get up and criticize us because we suggest that interest rates should be subsidized where we have conditions where the farmers are suffering from the inflation which has been present in our country, conditions they have had no part in causing. As I said, there has been a constant succession of delegations to the hon. the Minister. If it has not been the S.A.A.U. itself, it has been the woolgrowers, the wool-brokers, the citrus growers or the pineapple growers, so much so, that at one time, if one wanted to get hold of one of the heads of the Minister’s department, it has been almost impossible to do so because there has always been a queue outside the Minister’s office. That is not the fault of the farmers, but it is indicative of the difficulties under which they are labouring to-day. Let me say all the indications are that the Minister has received them very sympathetically, but I think the question we must ask ourselves in this Committee is whether that sympathy has been matched by the assistance the Government is proposing to give them. I think if we look at these Estimates it becomes quite clear that is not so. The first item which indicates that it is not so is the assistance the Government proposes to give to those industries which have been badly hit by devaluation. We are being asked to vote an amount of R4 million on the Estimates to assist export industries hit by devaluation. I do not know how the Government has arrived at that figure. Hon. Ministers themselves have said they cannot arrive at a final figure until all the export returns have been received. I accept the truth of that statement. But on what basis did they arrive at a figure of R4 million? If we add up the likely losses, as they have appeared from time to time in the Press, we find this figure of R4 million is liable to be totally insufficient.

How did you arrive at a figure?

I will tell the hon. the Deputy Minister in a little while. He must listen a bit and he will hear. Let us look at the sort of calculation we can expect, bearing in mind what the hon. the Minister himself said here during the Budget debate on the 5th April. I am not necessarily accepting that his basis is correct. He said that, “the farmers will 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”. We are being asked to vote an amount of R4 million. Now, the Deciduous Fruit Board themselves have been consistently saying that their probable losses, after payment of those amounts which have to be made in sterling, such as insurance and freight, have been deducted, will probably be to the extent of about R3 million. Then there is the citrus industry. As long ago as January of this year the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said at Paarl that it was probable that the losses of the citrus industry would be of the order of R2 million for oranges and about R700,000 for grapefruit. I am not accepting these figures as correct. Indeed, I think they are rather conservative, because the hon. the Minister will know he has had more than one deputation from the citrus industry to see him and they have pointed out to him the tremendous damage that is likely to be caused by consumer resistance overseas, and that this figure of R2.7 million is probably very conservative indeed as regards the assistance that particular sector of agriculture will need. There is also the canning industry. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member certainly displays very little knowledge of budgeting. In the first place, the hon member ought to know, because he has been in this House long enough now, that when the Government decides in principle that a certain project will be tackled, only a token amount or a provisional amount is shown on the Estimates.

Even if it is only R1?

It may even be only R1. The exporters of South Africa were promised that they would be compensated for the shortfall as a result of devaluation. It is for this reason that we are asking for an amount to be included in the Estimates in principle—and we are already making provision in principle for an amount of R4 million. The amount will be increased as the statements become available. The hon. member ought to know this. [Interjection.] No, I have only 10 minutes.

You are misleading the House now.

I am not misleading the House. The hon. member will get a chance to prove this in the debate in a moment. The hon. member also pointed out that the hon member for Christiana had gone back 20 years and that the farmers were no longer interested in that. The farmers are not interested in the United Party. This is why there is not one single rural constituency which is represented by the United Party. These are the true facts. However, I have not risen to reply to the hon. member for Albany. I am glad the hon. member for Durban (Point) is here, because we cannot allow a lot of untruths to go on record in this House without their being put right. On 15th February of this year the hon. member for Durban (Point) issued a number of challenges in this House. He motivated those challenges by advancing certain arguments. He said he was challenging the Minister on this, that and the other. I want to state quite clearly now that we cannot allow those lies, as contained in those challenges, to remain in Hansard unrepudiated. I want to refer to the first challenge now. The first challenge issued by the hon. member reads as follows—

As long ago as 1958…

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw the word “lies”.

I did not say the hon. member had told a lie. He repeated lies.

The Deputy Minister said that there were lies in Hansard.

Then I say that they are untruths. The hon. member told untruths here.

The hon. member for Klip River said, “Vause, you must withdraw those lies”.

The hon the Minister has already said that he is substituting the word “untruths” for that word.

In the first place, the hon. member said that as long ago as 1958 one of the Government’s own agricultural engineers had carried out a detailed study of mechanization and the problems in connection therewith; that he had submitted his findings to the Government and that he eventually resigned from the service a completely frustrated person. What are the true facts, Mr. Chairman? This information was supplied by an undisciplined official who had been reprimanded repeatedly for having visited private firms during lunch-hours on numerous occasions and not returning to his office. He got private firms to compile radio talks on a variety of subjects and to have these broadcast without the agricultural section of the Department knowing anything about it. On 25th May, 1962, he asked to be relieved of his contract. The hon. member now uses the information he received from such an official and he submits it to this House as the true facts. But I want to go further.

What is untrue about it?

I shall tell the hon. member just now what is untrue about it It does not tally with his little story. What he told the world was a lie. I want to mention a second case. The research work that had been done was published in various articles dealing with agriculture, and I have copies of them in my hands. In other words, all the information that had been checked, was made available to the farmers of South Africa. But then we had the hon. member saying, “I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny that agricultural engineers, whose duty it is to provide the farmers with advice and guidance,… are not allowed to recommend the use of re-refined oil”. What are the true facts? The true facts are that we have distributed more than 100,000 pamphlets in this connection on the value of re-refined oil and the way in which it may be used in conjunction with other oil. I have copies of those pamphlets here. I mention this, Sir, to show you that the hon. member’s information is wrong In this article, entitled “Laat die trekkers rol” (Let the tractors roll), we made this information available to the farmers. We pointed out that there were different types of pistons and that different types of oil had to be used for them. But the hon. member told the House of Assembly that this information was not allowed to be disseminated.

I want to quote a second case. The hon. member said, “I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny that engineering officers are not allowed to recommend the use of dry air-filters for tractors, although the Department knows and although it was proved to the Department that dry air-filters have a life of 18 months compared to a life of three months in the case of wet air-filters.” I want to say to the hon. member that this is another lie that was told to the world. In an article in “Farming in South Africa”, of which 100,000 copies were reprinted, the farmers were informed of the way in which a dry air-filter could be used to supplement the wet air-filter in certain types of work and what its life was compared to that of a wet air-filter. It was also recommended that the two types of air-filters could be used together under certain circumstances, but in other cases not. These are reprints of pamphlets issued by the Department. Sir, what is South Africa heading for when a United Party, bankrupt in agricultural knowledge and in understanding of agricultural circumstances, makes statements in this House which are incorrect and untrue? I want to say to the hon member, as well as all the hon. members of the United Party: If hon. members want us to take any notice of the matters they raise in this House, they should see to it that they adhere to the truth and to the correct facts.

Do you mean all members?

I mean any member. If an hon. member wants to raise a matter concerning agriculture, he is free to go to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services or to any of our other departments to obtain the necessary information there and to verify his information. [Interjections.] I want to repeat this. Hon. members may go and verify such information.

I want to mention another case. The hon. member said: “Does the hon. the Minister deny that there are 27 different makes and more than 100 models of tractors in South Africa?” The hon. member knows that there were 34 different makes of tractors on the market in 1961. But this number has been reduced since the Division of Agricultural Engineering Services was established. In 1967 there were only 15 different makes. Five different makes of tractors accounted for 90 per cent of the total number of tractors sold, that is 17,600. We therefore eliminated many of the different makes. In 1961 there were 37 different makes. At present there are 15 different makes. Yet the hon. member states in this House that there are 27 different makes and 100 models. But this is not the case, because we reduced the number.

I want to mention another example of the incorrect statements made by the hon. member in this House. He said: “I challenge him to deny that engineers are not allowed to recommend retreaded tyres.” Sir, the hon. member need only have gone to the Department. The Department would have pointed out to him what is stated on pages 25 to 31 of a reprint from Farming in South Africa of July. 1961. In that issue there appeared an article by Mr. J. J. Bruwer, namely “Verkry die beste diens uit trekkerbande” (Get the best service out of tractor tyres). In that article it was stated: “If good care is taken of the tyres, their walls will still be in good condition after four or five seasons, although the treads will be worn. The tyres may therefore be retreaded.” He added: “If the retreading was done properly, and if good care is taken of the retreaded tyres…”

The hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

I hope the hon. member will speak the truth in future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I want to follow the hon. the Deputy Minister in only one regard, and that is that he told us that when a matter has been approved in principle by the Government, a token amount was placed on the Estimates. He referred to the R4 million odd which was made available for assistance to exporters.

But that is under the Commerce Vote. That surely does not apply in respect of the exporters of primary produce which has not been dealt with by canners, or matters of that kind. There is an item here of R250,000 for assistance to the citrus industry. But that is all there under Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Now the hon. gentleman can take credit, if he likes, for what the Minister of Commerce is doing, but I think the time has come for us to remind the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that he is reported as having indicated to the deciduous fruit industry that they can rest assured that the Government would compensate producers in a reasonable manner for the loss of income sustained as a result of devaluation of British sterling. He indicated apparently, from the report of an interview with him, certain reservations. It is also reported in the Natal Mercury that—

This matter was raised by me in the no-confidence motion debate, when I requested that details should be given of the sort of assistance that was being promised. I have referred to the fact that the adverse effects of devaluation on fruit, wine and canned fruit, might last quite a time. It is possible that they may be made up in four or five years because of rising prices in the countries which have devalued. During that period it is quite possible for us to lose our position on the export market in respect of the countries which are affected by devaluation. I know that there were preliminary estimates of losses: I am not sure if they are attributable to the Minister of Economic Affairs. But they were set out in The Farmers Weekly on 13th December, estimating the losses in respect of deciduous fruit as being R3 million, oranges R2 million, grapefruit R700,000 saying of course nothing at all about pineapples.

Then there was an estimate from the President of the South African Agricultural Union in December that organized agriculture felt that their short-term loss would be between R10 and R11 million per year. As far as I can get the figures, we export to the United Kingdom preserved fruit and jams to the value of R31 million, deciduous fruit, about R15 million and citrus about R12½ million. It is true there is R4.1 million provided under the Commerce Vote. That, of course, does not cover anything like the losses in respect of all these items, especially with regard to what is going to be lost by the canners. Deciduous fruit alone amounts to about R15 million, grapes included, and the position is that one wonders just where we are. I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister to take this House, the country and the farming community into his confidence.

The citrus people have obviously heard something; they are talking about being compensated to the tune of about three-quarters of their losses due to devaluation, and certain subsidies being given in respect of canned fruit juices and in respect of advertising. I believe that industry is in such, a bad position that that will be inadequate. Even the United States of America is giving assistance to its citrus industry. I believe that when one looks at the situation, one will find that over the past 14 or 15 years the net returns to the citrus growers have dropped from 41.9 cents per pocket in 1952 to 6.38 cents per pocket in 1965 and a loss of 1.6 cents per pocket in 1966. Even 6.38 cents is a return of about 1¼ per cent on capital investment. When one goes into the situation, one finds that in the citrus industry the situation is so serious that it seems that unless assistance is given in respect of freight, precooling and railage, the future of that industry is very grim indeed. A lot has been said about the freight contract with the Conference lines.

But let us move from citrus to the position of pineapples. Here we seem to be in a position that we are told that some of the institutions dealing with it will have to be closed, and it seems as though a lot of them will have to be put out of business if the present situation continues and there is no proper assistance for them.

The two most stable products were apples and export grapes. They are competing with other producers in the Southern Hemisphere. One finds that Australia is meeting all the fall in prices due to devaluation of their exporters less an amount which would cover insurance premiums against devaluation, if they could get it. New Zealand has devalued below the level in the United Kingdom, and therefore she is in a preferential position. Argentine has a system of differential foreign exchanges, and that for fruit is especially favourable so that she can manipulate it so as to give her growers an advantage over ours. The same applies to an extent in respect of Brazil. We are thus in this position that, if the exporter is to becompensated only in part, and it looks to me from what I hear, as though for citrus it will be 75 per cent, or if they are going to be compensated only for one year, then they are going to find themselves suffering a very real competitive disadvantage, compared with the other Southern Hemisphere producers. In addition to that, one finds oneself this year in a situation where the apple prices have fallen very considerably overseas. It has been a bad year for marketing.

The market for grapes has been weak. If I could give hon. members some figures, they would find that in the case of apples, sterling prices are 20 per cent to 25 per cent below last year’s which were good, and probably about 15 per cent below normal prices. But if one has to have a devaluation of 14 per cent added to that, then one will find oneself with a return to the farmer of something like 30 per cent below normal prices, and almost 40 per cent below last year’s prices. What does that mean to the producer? There are certain, costs over which he has no control at all. A very small drop in the actual sales price can cause a huge drop in the income of the farmer on the farm. It costs about, I believe, R2.30 cents to pack 40 lbs. of apples in an export carton and to ship them overseas. Where the London price is the sterling equivalent of R3.60, the farmer gets R1.30 for his 40 lbs. of fruit. But if the sterling equivalent drops a third, and it comes down to R2.40, which is where it has been for some time this year, then he finds himself with 10 cents or a drop of 90 per cent in his farm income. Needless to say, at 10 cents a carton or R5 a ton, it pays no one to grow apples.

We are faced with this fact that we hope this weak British market will only last a few years. It is possible that some of our growers may be able to hang on. But unless there is State assistance for them, and unless there is an indication given to them that that State assistance is going to be there, so that they know to what extent they can commit themselves, we may find that when the time comes that the market changes overseas, our growers have been priced out of the market completely, that they have lost their distribution points and do not know where they are. Now the hon. the Minister has indicated in principle that he is going to assist them. But unless he is prepared to go into more detail, he is going to find that our farmers are afraid to commit themselves for the future. He is going to find himself in the position with some citrus growers that they fear they are going to have to pay into their pools, because they will not be able to cover their expenses. He is going to find himself in the position where, despite all efforts to diversify, the percentage represented by the British market is so big that they cannot carry on under present conditions. [Time expired.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned quite a number of interesting facts, and we cannot get away from the fact that there are problems in the canning industry, the citrus industry and the deciduous fruit industry, but there are a few matters we must just put right. The question was asked from the Opposition side: What about the R4 million appearing on the Estimates? This does not fall under the Vote of the Minister of Agriculture at all. It represents assistance to canners and exporters, and if it is found to be insufficient, additional amounts will be voted, as is done in all other cases. Surely we cannot tell the Opposition now what the actual loss as a result of England’s devaluation is going to be; we must first submit the figures to the Minister and present a crystal-clear case to prove that Government assistance is justified. But then hon. members must bear this in mind as well. We must not blame everything on the devaluation by Britain. Britain is not our only market. After Britain had devalued, the market was stimulated and a certain increase occurred, and the balance is being sold in Europe, mainly in West Germany, which did not devalue.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that Australia had made concessions to the farmers. I may say that the same reply which I gave a moment ago was also given by the Australian Government to its canners. They were not given a definite reply. We can see this on the world market. Australia is cutting prices like mad and we can hardly keep up with them. Another problem we must keep in mind is that the exporters are saddled with enormously high shipping costs. There I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is not this Minister’s responsibility, but shipping costs have increased to such an extent that a box of oranges yields the farmer 60 cents, whereas his shipping costs amount to 62 cents. This is what the farmer receives after having paid his shipping costs; in other words, more than half the cost of that box is taken up by shipping costs. In this regard I must give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition full marks for having made a good point, but these other hon. members of the Opposition disappointed me. The hon. member for Newton Park amazed me. Last year I liked his reasoning, but this year he is complaining about the maize price. Can you imagine what must happen if our country gets two inches of rain in February next year and we again have a maize crop of 100 million bags?

But surely we had that last year.

Yes, and what happened last year? On the initial estimate of 82 million bags, the price was fixed at R3.35. The final crop came to 106 million bags, which exhausted the Stabilization Fund to a minus amount. Next year we might have another good crop, and what would happen then? Instead of thanking the Minister for the price to-day, you are moaning and complaining, while every producer is grateful for getting such a price for maize this year. As I say, I shudder to think of next year if we have another crop of 100 million bags, because what will happen? This year an amount of R25 million is being provided on the estimates as a contribution by the Department of Agricultural Economics to the maize farmer in the form of a consumers’ subsidy, a storage and handling subsidy, on 58 million bags. It does not matter how. Last year it was R31 million, from which R6 million must be subtracted for export losses. In other words, last year the subsidy was also R25 million on a crop of 106 million bags, and this year we have the same amount on a much smaller crop. Then, surely, it is ungrateful of you to say that you are not satisfied with the maize price. Then you think you are doing the farmers a favour, and then the farmers say it is a good Opposition because they are complaining about the maize price, instead of the Opposition using their common sense and asking the Minister at this stage already please to take precautions against the difficulties of next year. After all, they should thank him at some time or other. I know we may not thank the Minister; it is a terrible disgrace in the eyes of the Opposition, but I just wanted to mention this in passing.

Last Friday the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) got up and pleaded for subsidies. After him the hon. member for Walmer got up and said he was sick and tired of subsidies.

I did not say that I was sick and tired of them, but that the farmers were.

The hon. member said, “I am sick and tired of subsidies”, and immediately afterwards the hon. member asked why the rates of interest could not be subsidized. Good heavens! What does the hon. member want?

I just want to return to what I said in the little Budget debate in regard to the problems with which the canners are faced to-day, and I mention the pineapple farmers specifically. Remember, no one on this side has said that agriculture is doing well—no one. I am not saying that agriculture is doing well. I agree with every United Party member who has said so far that agriculture is having a hard time. Agriculture is having a hard time in that there are world surpluses. We have to sell on a world market which has declined. There was a drought in our country. Now the hon. members want to blame the position on the Government, but it is to be blamed on world circumstances. And we are realistic enough to see the truth and to say you are right in that respect, that some farmers are having a hard time, but not all. The small farmers in particular are having a hard time. But what is to be done if maize is exported at a loss of R1 per bag to-day? Are you as taxpayers prepared to say: Take the money from the pockets of the State and add that R1? Will that satisfy you? Is this what you want? Reference was made here to the report of the commission of inquiry into agriculture. May I just read to the Opposition the most important sentence in this report? If you will keep this in mind, our debates on agriculture in this House will be different. It reads as follows—

This is what has been worrying me in this entire discussion since Friday. You want to destroy the farmers’ sense of responsibility. That is true. You say the farmers are having a hard time, but what about private initiative? Let me mention an example. Two farmers have identical pieces of land. Each has 30 morgen under irrigation. They are neighbours, with only a fence separating them. Both have red soil, with the same fall, under irrigation. Last year one of them made a net profit of R4,300 and his neighbour suffered a net loss of R250. What must the State do in the case of the one who suffered a loss? Why has no member of the United Party ever got up here and spoken about efficiency? They steer clear of it. I agree with what has been said here to the effect that the farmer must be trained. He must be able to make his own calculations. But what tendency do you want to cultivate amongst our farmers? He buys land and starts farming and in the first year he sees that he paid too much for the land. Some of the hon. members on the other side have said that we must not always talk of high land prices, but surely a farmer must calculate in advance whether he will be able to manage or not. After carrying on for a year he tells the State he has made a mistake.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I am not prepared to allow any questions. There is plenty of time available for this debate and hon. members will have sufficient opportunity to speak.

Then the State has to help that man, and hon. members are taking the most important thing away from the farmer, that is, the initiative he should have. He must feel that he, like the shopkeeper, the butcher, the cobbler, or the barber, will work out his own position and will make a success of things. I agree with this report that there are circumstances, such as drought, which bring the farmer to his knees and that in that case he must be treated sympathetically, but the United Party come along with these stories that assistance must be granted in cases of inefficiency and where a man has paid hopelessly too much for his farm. And what happens in the end? In the end the State will be saddled with him. Then the Opposition says that this side has been in power for 20 years and that the farmers have gone downhill year after year for 20 years, but they do not see the enormous surpluses that have been produced as a result of what the Minister’s Department has done—according to the Opposition I may not say “the Minister”.

Another aspect we must keep in mind is that the farmer must be able to make a decent living in this country. Both sides will grant him this. We all want him to be able to make a decent living. [Time expired.]

In this debate we have thus far witnessed a worse spectacle than the worst of the past. I want to use a figure of speech in explaining my opinion of this debate as conducted by the Opposition up to now. They have touched on this, that and the other without making one positive statement. I have come to the conclusion that one can compare it to a person who has a squint. In one eye he has no sight at all, but I want to add that I have come to the conclusion that the sight of the eye remaining to the Opposition is also rather defective. It strikes me that the Opposition has steered clear of statistics, of which we have a good deal at our disposal this year to give us a clear indication of what precisely the Government’s long-term policy is, what is being done to implement that long-term policy, and what the short-term policy is. A previous speaker made it clear that he accused the Government of not having a long-term policy. Another accusation made here was that the credit facilities which are made available for agriculture were quite inadequate. I cannot refrain from boring the House by quoting a few statistics in order to prove that that statement of the Opposition is completely devoid of any substance. Such a statement is very far removed from the truth.

I begin with this estimate of expenditure on the Loan Account. At the very first glance one sees that the aid to farmers amounts to R18 million, which represents an increase, and for the purchase of land there is R15.7 million, which also represents an increase. This straight away disproves the Opposition’s argument that this Government is promoting the depopulation of the rural areas. [Interjections.]

Order!

I now come to the other part of the Estimates, i.e. the estimates of expenditure to be defrayed from the Revenue Account. In addition to the other amounts such as subsidies, etc., an amount of R34 million has been made available to the farmers for production purposes, for example by way of subsidies for artificial fertilizer. Furthermore there is the interest equalization contribution, and various other items. We have, for instance, the contribution to the Land Bank in respect of interest on production loans to farmers. What can this be but a subsidy on interest?

Are you a farmer?

Yes, but I am a realistic one. The Government is accused of not having a long-term policy as regards financing, but here it is very clear for all to see that the loans granted in the past few years were the large annual amounts of R33 million. R29 million, and R31 million. These are long-term loans to individual farmers at the reasonable rate of interest of 6 per cent. The argument that increased subsidies should be granted is really based on the high rates of interest the farmer has to pay the private sector and the commercial banks, but here you have a facility which has for many years been made available to agriculture and in terms of which capital is made available at a reasonable rate of interest. These amounts that are listed under “Agricultural credit” are available at 5 per cent interest. Where do you still want to subsidize rates of interest? I just want to ask the Opposition this one further question: If you want to grant the farmers further subsidies in the form of interest subsidies, are you also prepared to grant the small businessman and the officials an interest subsidy?

Are they having as hard a time as the farmers?

Some of them are but apart from how hard a time the officials are having, this is the principle that applies here. If you are prepared to subsidize one sector, you must also be prepared to subsidize the other, otherwise you are discriminating.

Further credit facilities that are being made available are to be found on page 8 of the Land Bank report under hypothec loans. These loans are being granted to farmers on medium and longer terms specifically, and the object here is to keep farmers on the land and to enable them to produce. We know that there are burdens resting on the shoulders of the farmers. I mentioned the figure in this respect in a previous debate. If you look at the loans granted to farmers, you will see that a very large percentage, if not by far the largest percentage, of these loans, were granted on fixed property; they are hypothec loans; it is not debt incurred by the farmers for some unexplicable reason or another. The capital being utilized here is not unproductive capital; it is capital that is being utilized to put young farmers onto the land and to keep older farmers on the land. This policy is also being pursued under Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure.

The statement is also made that insufficient capital is being made available to agriculture. What about the cash credit accounts at our agriculture co-operatives? Are they not specifically intended to enable the farmer to purchase his production requirements? Is this not capital which is being made available to agriculture specifically? Sir, I want to put this specific question to the Opposition: Do they want to make capital available to agriculture at a rate of interest, at however low a percentage it may be fixed, which will place such a heavy burden on the farmer that he will never be able, whatever the price structure may be, to produce at a profit? It remains a fact that agriculture, whatever sector it may be, can carry only so much credit as can be used effectively to yield a profit. Does the Opposition want credit facilities to be used in agriculture in an ineffective way? They have now been asserting in this House for years that the capital at the disposal of agriculture is not sufficient. I want to ask the Opposition whether they will stand up here and tell the farmers that they must be careful not to over-capitalize? Sir, in this Budget we see a further proof of the Government’s sympathetic approach towards the problems of the farmers. Hon. members have for instance referred to the wool growers. What is the Government doing for the wool growers? In this Budget R10 million is being made available to assist in financing the wool grower at his various wool co-operatives, etc. [Time expired.]

Sir, my hon. Leader mentioned the question of ocean freight rates and pointed out how badly they were hitting certain sections of our agricultural export industry; I think he referred particularly to the citrus industry. The hon. member for Standerton agreed with him and said that that was not a matter which was under the control of this hon. Minister. Of course, Sir, we know that it falls under the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, but I would like to remind the hon. member for Standerton—I am sorry that he is not here now—that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, when we were debating the new ocean freight agreement in this House in October, 1966, said—

Sir. I think it is time that this hon. Minister approached his colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, on this matter, because what is happening is that every year or every second year the conference lines come along and say, “We have had increases in costs”, and it would appear that those increases are nearly always granted. This is one of the biggest causes of difficulty with the export of our agricultural products. In this matter, as in other matters, it seems that agriculture always has to stand last in the queue. I want to refer to another example of this, also dealing with export. When I asked the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in this House on 22nd March this year, whether he would give agriculture a representative on his Export Promotion Council, he said “no”.

He has given agriculture a representative.

A full-time representative?

Yes.

I am glad to hear that and I hope that the question has served some good purpose.

Sir. the hon. member for Harrismith quoted a lot of figures here and tried to suggest that this Government was doing a great deal for the farmers. I do not want to belittle the aid which has been granted to the agricultural industry, but I want to say that in many instances it compares very unfavourably with the assistance granted by other countries to similar industries in their own countries. The hon. the Deputy Minister, when we asked him about this aid of R4 million to exporters, said that that was just a token amount. Sir, since we are going to be in recess when the final figures become available for industries like the pineapple industry, I wonder when we are going to have the opportunity of voting the remaining amount. The Government has the money of course As the hon. member for Orange Grove pointed out, the hon. the Minister of Finance has R180.7 million tucked away very carefully in his political mattress. Sir, let us just take one or two of the other amounts which we have been asked to vote and of which hon. members opposite made great play during the Budget debate. Take the amount of R1 million, for example, that is being granted to the wool industry for promotion. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is also a token amount? Because for every £ which the Australian grower contributes to the International Wool Secretariat the Australian Government contributes another £. In other words, they have been contributing on a £-for-£ basis, but what does our Government do when the wool industry approaches them for assistance? Let me repeat that the wool industry in this country is one that has always tried to stand on its own feet. The National Woolgrowers particularly have said: “We do not want Government assistance unless we absolutely have to take it, because we wish to maintain our independence.” This Government grants the wool industry R1 million. whereas our contribution to the International Wool Secretariat budget this year is something of the order of R2.75 million. Sir. I think we should compare those figures with what the Australian Government is doing for their woolgrowers before we shout too much about what our Government is doing for the South African woolgrower. Take the amount of R250.000 on the Estimates for the citrus industry. I know that that is not all they are going to get. I understand that this is for advertising, for promotion overseas. Sir, the citrus industry is a highly efficient industry. I believe that the industry’s promotion expenses overseas amount to something like R4 million. This is the first time that this Government has assisted them and they have been in trouble for a long time. Contrast what this Government has done with what has been done by the Italian Government, for example. I quote now from a journal which every citrus grower in this House will have, namely, the first issue of Outspan News. The Italian Government has been assisting their industry in respect of advertising to the extent of R400.000 from as far back as 1965. Last year, in 1967-’68 the Government of Sicily voted R500,000. This is the sort of assistance that those Governments are giving.

What about the United States?

A third of the advertising: costs of the growers in Florida is met by the Government. Sir, I know that the hon. the Minister intends to assist the citrus industry, but do not let us run away with the idea that the sort of assistance which the South African farmer is getting at present is out of all proportion to the assistance which farmers in other countries are getting.

Who said that?

I say that we must not get that wrong impression, and some of the speakers on the Government side, although perhaps they did not intend to create that impression, nevertheless created that impression.

Sir, I want to come now to a matter which has also been mentioned by my hon. Leader, and that is the matter of the pineapple industry. The hon. the Minister knows better than I do that he has had two delegations to see him. the one being a delegation under the auspices of the pineapple sub-committee, which I think, came to see him privately about devaluation difficulties, and then latterly a delegation of representatives of growers supplying a particularly cannery, a delegation which came under the auspices of the recently reconstituted Pineapple-growers’ Association. Sir, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister this afternoon will give us some indication as to how he intends to help this industry? This is an industry which has a long history of price instability, their difficulties have not always been made easier by the attitude of the Government. I would like to remind hon. members what the position was last year when the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs refused our request that this industry should also be brought under the provisions of the Canned Fruit Export Marketing Act which we passed last year. The position is that this industry, as far as the canning side is concerned, has been the whipping boy. Conditional selling has been practised against the interests of the pineapple producers. Sir, I would like to illustrate how much price instability there has been in the industry. These prices which I have here are the canners’ prices per ton, paid to the grower at the factory. Whereas in 1950 which was a boom year, the grower was receiving something like R38.5 per ton by 1960 it had dropped to less than a third of that amount, namely R12 per ton. There was a tremendous drop. They were getting a third of what they were getting previously. Sir, these people did not just sit around idly and do nothing about it; they tried to help themselves and they tried to follow the advice given to them by agronomists and economists that they must diversity their farming, that they must go in for other crops, that they must go in for stock production, for example, and for mixed farming. [Time expired.]

Firstly I want to refer to a few remarks made by hon. members on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Gardens read out a report this afternoon about the sugar industry in the Eastern Lowveld and about the millions which have allegedly been lost there. I just want to ask the hon. member to go and find the correction which also appeared in the Press—unfortunately it was a very short report—to the effect that that report was quite incorrect, and to read it out. I just want to say to him that that report was quite incorrect, as also quite a number of other reports in connection with the sugar industry in the Lowveld.

Then I want to refer to the citrus industry, which was also mentioned here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Albany. I want to remind them that last year I brought the whole question of the citrus industry to the attention of the Minister in quite some detail in this House. I cannot remember that I received any support from that side of the House. In the meantime I want to express may appreciation to the Minister and his Department for what they have already done and for what they still intend doing for the citrus industry, an industry which has been built up over many years on exports, which has made a great name for itself abroad, but which is experiencing serious problems owing to circumstances beyond its control. When we discuss agriculture in South Africa, it is also necessary to see agriculture as a whole. When we discuss agricultural problems, we must measure agriculture by the extent to which it could and can overcome its problems. We must measure it by its achievements.

The first requirement which one sets agriculture is that it should supply the country with food. If we investigate this apsect, we shall find that this supply was forthcoming, in fact an over-supply. The farmers of this country, with the assistance of various Government Departments, have to a large extent succeeded in making South Africa independent in respect of the provision of food. If hon. members want to test this statement, they can look up what has been imported in the form of raw agricultural products. They will find that during the past year rice, and a small quantity of less important agricultural products, were imported. Apart from the fact that South Africa was self-supporting in respect of most agricultural products, agriculture made large quantities of produce available to our manufacturing industry. In this connection certain types of cotton in particular were imported. This is a commodity which South Africa is not yet able to supply to our industries in the desired quantity.

Apart from the fact that agriculture has supplied food and has also supplied the industries, agriculture in this country earned between R300 and R400 million per year for South Africa in export goods over the past 10 years. I think that this is an exceptional achievement for a country such as South Africa, where climatic conditions are probably more uncertain than in most other agricultural countries of the world. South Africa’s earnings in foreign exchange from agriculture dropped below R300 million in only one year during the past 10 years—and the particulars in this regard are given in the Blue Book. With the rapid development of agriculture it has also become a large consumer of manufactured goods, such as implements, tractors, artificial fertilizer and insecticides. In this process agriculture has made a large contribution to the economic development of the country. In addition I want to make the statement that agriculture has made a large contribution towards maintaining the cost of living within limits and towards maintaining standards of living at a certain level. I am mentioning all these points to illustrate to you that during the past number of years, and especially in the 20 years of the National Party régime, agriculture in this country has made a special contribution to South Africa and has itself undergone exceptional development.

But agriculture has not only produced all these means. As far as human material is concerned, agriculture has also made an outstanding contribution to the development of our country. One need only look around one in this House to see, even in our Ministerial benches, how many persons come from the ranks of this industry. This is something which I want to emphasize particularly. The farming sector in all parts of the world, and especially in this country, produces a type of human material which is essential to the development of a country. In this respect our farming sector has not failed. Even on the Opposition side, from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition down to the backbenchers, it has made a contribution. I should like to see an even greater achievement in this regard, and I feel that this is not something which should simply pass unnoticed.

Notwithstanding this exceptional achievement during the past number of years, I want to mention that the number of farmers has in fact decreased. With this small number of farmers, which is continually decreasing, we have the position that, as a result of the keen competition existing and heavy demands set in our farming industry, certain farmers must fall by the wayside. This reduced number of farmers, however, has succeeded in achieving greater production. And if we compare it to the total value of our domestic product, we find that the contribution made by the farming industry to our gross domestic product has increased every year. During the past few years it increased to such an extent that the backlog as compared with the production of industry was being made up. This is, in my opinion, exceptionally praiseworthy. I therefore want to congratulate the farmers of South Africa on remaining on their feet under the difficult circumstances of a particularly severe drought and of having to compete with the citrus and wool industries abroad. The Opposition has said that they have not even received the assistance which other countries have given to their farming industry and therefore the achievements of our farmers are indeed exceptional.

I now want to emphasize the State’s contribution. In the first place the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has provided training facilities at our universities and agricultural colleges. It has been responsible for research, guidance and soil conservation. It has also supplied water. This was strictly speaking not its function, but actually that of the Department of Water Affairs, which is of course not under discussion now. All this assistance was made available by the Government through the Government Departments to enable the farmers to accomplish this exceptional achievement.

I also want to express my particular gratitude for the fact that an amount for a new faculty building at the University of Pretoria has been provided on the Estimate. This faculty has through the years rendered a great service to our farming community. Here we also see that the State is once again fulfilling its obligations.

Then I also want to mention the Department of Agricultural Credit and the Land Bank. They have perhaps not done as much as we would have liked them to do, but I nevertheless think that they have made an important contribution. We can also look at the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Under the Marketing Act and the Co-operative Societies Act the risks to which the farmers are exposed in the marketing of their products have to a large extent been reduced and we have received a valuable service.

In stating this view, however, I do not want to suggest that our farmers have no problems and that the Government has seen to it that all the problems were ironed out. I want to mention one or two points, points which are particular bottle-necks under these circumstances. The first is the question of the tremendous interest burden resting on the shoulders of the farmers as a result of their increasing burden of debt. According to figures at my disposal the medium and long-term debt burden of the farmers has risen to approximately R 1,200 million. The Department of Agricultural Credit and the Land Bank together provide only approximately 20 to 25 per cent of this amount. We cannot want to argue here that the State must supply all the capital needs of the farmers. However, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that the more creditworthy farmer should also be assisted. At present the requirement is that he must be in a certain position before the Department of Agricultural Credit will come to his aid by providing capital. I think that this is a particular deficiency at the moment.

The second point which I want to emphasize and where I think there is a deficiency is the following. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing should pay more attention to market research. I know that, like all our Departments, they are also faced with a staff problem. We know that they are experiencing a great deal of difficulty in obtaining the required number of trained persons. However, I consider it necessary that more market research should be done, and more attention should also be paid to studying our agricultural economic problems. We can perhaps draw persons from the commercial world, but I think we should accept that agricultural economics has its own particular problems and that particular knowledge is required to deal with it. Therefore it is necessary for us to train agricultural economists and to have persons specialize specifically in this direction. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since this debate began last Friday hon. members of the Opposition have by implication and also directly been making the accusation that this Government is doing nothing for the welfare of the farmer and they repeated this allegation to-day.

Now, how can one test the efficiency of a party? We can test its efficiency only on the basis of its deeds and the facts which it proved during the years when it was in power. It is not our fault but the fault of the United Party that the last time they were in power was 20 years ago. Therefore I want to ask them to join me for a short while in calling to mind the year 1940 and subsequent years when they were in power. If they maintain that we are doing nothing for the farmer, I want to ask them whether they can still recall how our people had great difficulty in obtaining meat in these years? Do they still remember how our people could not get white bread? Do they still remember how we often had to eat bran-bread and often had to be satisfied with porridge when we could not obtain any bread at all? That was the condition in which that side of the House left the agricultural industry of South Africa. We can also recall what a struggle it was to obtain sugar in those days. Often we had to sweeten our coffee with honey or jam because sugar simply was unobtainable when they were in power. Now I want to ask them to do something more, and perhaps they will become even hotter under the collar. Let us draw a comparison between our two Ministers. The then Minister of Agriculture was a townsman who had to leave the legal profession to manage the affairs of the farmers. What did he know about the farmers in South Africa or about farming in South Africa? He made a major contribution to the defeat which the United Party suffered in 1948. To him we compare the present Minister of Agriculture, a man from the soil of South Africa, a man from the ranks of the farmers of South Africa, a man who knows the farmer, a man who has knowledge of the problems of the farmer, a man who is able, as far as it is humanly possible, to solve and to understand the problems of the farmer of South Africa, and to deal with and view those problems sympathetically. That is the kind of Minister of Agriculture we have to-day.

Now I want to deal more specifically with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). Last Friday he alleged here that this Government was doing nothing or very little in the interests of the dairy farmer in South Africa.

And what have they done?

I shall tell this House what they have done. When that side was in power, conditions in the fresh milk industry on the Witwatersrand and everywhere in the Transvaal were chaotic. In those years the farmer had to send his milk to milk depots on the Rand and in that vicinity. I myself had that experience. At the end of the month when payment was due, the depot owner told one, “During this month so many hundreds of gallons of milk were sour, so many 10 gallon cans were only half full, and therefore I am deducting R100 or R200 from your cheque”.

Is that not happening to-day as well?

No, it is not happening to-day. At that time we simply had to be satisfied with that state of affairs. We had to put up with that, because if one complained the depot owner told one, “if you are not satisfied take your milk elsewhere”. When that happened the farmer had to seek high and low for a new market for a month or two, and during that time he sold no milk. In those days, when the dairy farmer compared his production for a certain year to his income from milk for that year, the result in most cases was that the dairy farmer had been compensated for only 60 per cent of his milk production for that year. In 1962 this Minister, this Government, and the Department established the Central Milk Board and since that time that board has been empowered to deal with the administrative interests of the farmer as far as marketing is concerned. The farmer can sell his entire production and receive the price for his milk which is due to him.

I want to leave the Opposition at that and proceed to another matter. We have been experiencing difficult times during the past few years, chiefly as the result of droughts. Many farmers are hard-pressed to-day because of the severe drought we have experienced. But now it is also true, as far as our farmers are concerned, that some of them still struggle even when it is a good year. The reason for that has to be sought in incorrect farming methods which are being employed. Therefore I want to ask that our farmers should make greater use of the facilities provided by the hon. the Minister with his Department for assisting farmers, where necessary, to apply mixed farming.

Science has made progress in every field, also in the field of agriculture, but a farmer has to have regard to the laws of nature if he wants to employ scientific techniques in his farming operations. The law of nature dictated that our country be divided into various natural farming regions—that is why it is essential that the farmer in Heidelberg should concentrate for the most part on mealie production, but that he should not rely solely on that. The point I want to make is that such a farmer should integrate mixed farming as far as possible with his production of mealies, and should introduce livestock on his farm In view of the fact that our country is divided into natural farming regions it would be foolish of the farmer in Vryburg, Smithfield or Thabazimbi to attempt to grow mealies.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to give you a very simple example of the way in which our farmers can increase their income by applying mixed farming methods. I take the small farmer in Heidelberg as my example. In Heidelberg there are several farmers who have achieved success in applying these methods, and for that reason I feel at liberty to use them as my example. The small mealie farmer in Heidelberg who produces 3,000 bags of mealies per annum, can increase his income considerably by keeping livestock as well. Let this farmer acquire 40 cows, so that he may have approximately 26 cows which will give milk throughout the year. He can supply his milk to the factory and in that way he will be able to increase his income by a further R4,000. If one adds this to the 3,000 bags of mealies, the amount comes to R13,860, the equivalent of 4,200 bags of mealies. By introducing this method he will even be able to increase his income from his mealie production to such an extent that he will have an equivalent of R4.62 per bag of mealies, and not R3.35. If he had contented himself with the production of 3,000 bags of mealies, his income would have been R9,900 only, which is a full R4,000 less. If this farmer operates on a profit of 20 per cent we find that his profit on mealies alone would have been R 1,980. That is hardly sufficient for him and his family to live on. But when one adds the income which he makes from his cows, his total profit is approximately R3,000. If the situation of his farm allows him to market fresh milk, his profit will be R3,500 per annum That is sufficient for that farmer to live on and to make even further progress.

Then there still is irrigation farming. If it is at all possible for a farmer to integrate irrigation farming with his other farming operations, he should do so. These facilities are also made available to him by the Department. It was proved during the recent years of drought that those farmers who had ten or even as little as five morgen of land under irrigation on which they could grow potatoes and other cash crops, or fodder, remained on their feet. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the hon member for Heidelberg is advanced in years, but young in his experience of Parliament, otherwise he would not so readily draw comparisons between Governments and then say, “The length of a government’s term of office indicates how well it governs”. He referred to the years 1945 to 1948, the post-war years, when the whole world had a hard time. This Government then came into power as a result of the dissatisfaction of returned soldiers and the price of bread. [Interjection.] I want to tell the hon. member that bread has been subsidized from that time on. He can see for himself: R25 million is being voted for it this year. This Government would not dare take this away and have the consumer pay one cent per loaf more; if they did that, they would also fall. Without this subsidy on bread they would go out of office I am not going to deal any further with the hon. member for Heidelberg.

In my opinion the hon. member for Nelspruit made a very sensible contribution to the debate, and dealt with a matter which can be profitably discussed on both sides of the House. I should have liked to follow up and elaborate on his arguments in regard to the burden of debt which has to be borne by the farmers, the increased rates of interest and what they mean to the farmer. He also mentioned the farmers’ burden of debt of R1,200 million, on which they now have to pay 2 per cent more interest, and said that only 25 per cent of that had been taken over by the State, while the balance consisted of other debts. These are matters which we can discuss profitably.

But I want to return to something else. He also mentioned the amount in respect of the total export of agricultural products over the past number of years, i.e. between R300 million and R400 million. Over the last few years approximately R100 million of this amount was contributed by wool exports alone. It is a pity that it was not R200 million. Now I just want to put something right for the purpose of the record. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Christiana is not here.

You are talking nonsense!

Oh, here he is! I am glad that he is so near that he can hear well. He made a scandalous statement which has to be put right. He said that during the war years wool was given away to Britain at a lower price than would have been obtained for it under other circumstances. That is a scandalous statement. I want to put it right. In 1939-’40 South Africa was the only one of the three Southern Hemisphere countries, i.e. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, which was still selling to Japan and had a free market. In 1940, when the situation was untenable and shipping not at all possible, the British Government, after we begged them also to make provision for us in the scheme, paid us the same price that Australia and New Zealand received. That hon. member was a member of the United Party at that stage, and he thanked the Lord that this had happened.

You are talking nonsense again. That is not correct, and you know it.

I shall go further. I am speaking subject to correction, but I think that Mr. Wentzel was a member of the United Party, the old South African Party, from 1933 to 1939. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I said that I wanted to put the matter right for the purposes of the record. In 1940 South African wool, together with the wool of the other Southern Hemisphere countries, was sold at 10¼d. per pound for that year’s clip to Britain, which was the only buyer at that stage. The hon. the Minister cannot even join in the laughter. He was too young then to remember it now. The price then increased gradually until it stood at 12¼d. per pound at the end of the war in 1945. Do hon. members know what happened then? The Government then sent a mission abroad in connection with the international disposal of the large wool surplus, for which we had built warehouses in this country which are now of particular benefit to the wool industry. Subsequently we bought it back from Britain at a very low price. The Minister does at least know something about that.

Those are profits which Britain made.

That same deputation had instructions from the farmers in South Africa to sell their wool on the same basis of a fixed price. We returned and sold that wool on the basis of a free market plus a reserve price. That was done on condition that the Governments of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand pay £100 million to the British Government to keep them from putting that wool on the market, because otherwise the wool market would have collapsed.

That is the record of the wool industry over those years which this hon. member has the temerity to cast in the teeth of the United Party now and to say that they neglected the wool industry. The hon. member who sat next to him for years, and who was one of the most difficult people in this House, was one of the biggest supporters of that British wool-buying scheme. I am referring to Mr. Gerhard Bekker. Why did the hon member not quarrel with him when he sat there, [Interjections.] I want to say that the 12¼d. a pound in 1945—and I have said this before—meant more to the farmer than the 32 cents a pound which he is getting now. He could buy much more for 12¼d. than he can buy for 32 cents to-day. This hon. member has forgotten that in 1932, when the National Party was in power, the price of meat was 3¼d. a pound and butter 4d. a pound, and that the people were working with picks and shovels on the Railways and on the roads. That is what happened. I am also saying this for the edification of the hon. member for Heidelberg. The 12¼d. a pound in 1945—and this has been proved by the Stellenbosch Economic Committee itself had much more purchasing power than 32 cents has to-day. The hon. member for Albany has already mentioned this.

For years pleas have been made and special deputations have been sent to the Prime Minister, and again four months ago, and we have still had no reply from the Prime Minister. But at this late stage only R1 million is provided on the Estimates for the promotion of the wool industry. Let me enlighten the Minister about the position in regard to wool in America. Woollen blankets commanded only 10.4 per cent of the American market in 1966, and 8.2 per cent at the end of 1967.

We do not produce that wool.

Over against that, “wholly and chiefly man-made fibres” commanded 65.8 per cent of the American market. An hon. member over there has interjected, “We do not produce that wool”. But one of our partners produces that wool, and as long as they have a surplus of 800,000 or 900,000 bales we shall suffer as a result That hon. member must tell me why we cannot push up the price of wool slightly, in spite of the promotion work we are doing.

And what about devaluation? Is there going to be any compensation for the wool farmer? In the post-war years, until two or three years ago, Britain was the biggest buyer of our wool on the open market. She was the main buyer of South African wool. But, Sir. do you know to what place she has dropped? To the seventh place. If this is the position, do we want to suggest that the wool farmer has suffered no loss as a result of devaluation? Wool is a larger export product than citrus or our canned products. I maintain that if our biggest buyer of former times has now dropped to the seventh place, we as sellers must be detrimentally affected thereby. [Time expired.]

I made a very interesting discovery to-day about the hon. member for East London (City). He alleged here that if the Government were to increase the price of bread it would be defeated. All the people would vote for the United Party and the Government would be defeated. Now for the first time I realize why the hon. member for East London (City) became a United Party man—on the previous occasion when the price of bread was increased, he joined the United Party. But he also had something further to say about the reasons why he became a United Party man. In 1932-’33 when the price of cheese, eggs, butter, etc. was 3c. to 4c, he was, as he said, still a member of the National Party But when those commodities became more expensive, he joined the United Party. Now it seems to me the hon. member joins the United Party as soon as commodities begin to increase in price.

That is very poor.

I do not want to discuss wool at the moment, except to point out to the hon. member that although he spoke of the disadvantages which were being suffered by the wool farmers as a result of devaluation, there were occasions when the wool farmers derived great benefits from devaluation. The wool market derived great benefits as a result of the devaluation in England in 1949. During that time when the price of wool increased so tremendously the wool farmers and the Government were concerned about it—not that we begrudged the farmers those advantages, but there was the question of what was going to become of the industry. Warnings were addressed to the wool farmers, and it was pointed out that they should be careful of the higher prices—their commodity could not be sold at those high prices. To-day the hon. member for East London (City) discussed the loss of markets, and how artificial fibres are replacing wool. But at that time the hon. member was chairman of the Wool Board. At that time he said that they should pay no heed to the warnings because wool would never become cheaper again

That is nonsense.

The hon. member knows as well as I do that he did in fact say that.

What proof have you that he said that?

I can look it up for the hon. member. However, it happened quite a few years ago. But the hon. member for Newton Park need not feel concerned—the hon. member for East London (City), if he wants to be honest, will himself admit it. And I know he will be honest. The circumstances prevailing in an industry change from time to time, and as the circumstances change, problems arise—problems such as those which are at present being experienced in the wool industry and other industries.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me a few questions, to which I should first like to reply. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked once again what the position is in regard to compensation for our exporters of produce, particularly canned fruit, which is being sold on overseas markets, particularly the British market. But statements in regard to this matter have been made on previous occasions. When the hon. the Minister of Finance announced some time ago that we were not going to devalue, he stated that those industries which could be prejudiced by devaluation would be assisted by the Government. This was subsequently repeated by the Minister of Economic Affairs, and I said the same thing. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that these export industries cannot all base their activities on the same pattern. Our citrus industry, for example, does not apply the same system of marketing as the deciduous fruit industry. The position is that no assistance can be given to any industry before we know whether they have suffered losses as a result of devaluation, and if so, to what extent. We must first ascertain whether prices in Britain have increased or decreased.

They have all decreased.

Very well. But we will then have to ascertain to what extent that has been caused by devaluation. The Government has given the exporters in question the assurance that if they can produce evidence to show that they have suffered losses as a result of devaluation, the necessary assistance will be granted to them As far as the citrus industry is concerned, we have already announced that steps will be taken. They know where they stand. At the moment we cannot include specific amounts for this purpose in the Estimates. All these export industries are under the control of control boards. The Government must proceed along the same lines in respect of these industries as it does in the case of mealies, for example, when it decides to subsidize the mealie price on the basis of certain facts; in other words as soon as they can produce evidence to show that they have suffered losses, and to what extent, the Government will be able to render assistance. Obviously the same applies to the canning industry. But now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must remember that the producer himself, who is active in the deciduous fruit industry and undertakes the delivery of his fruit, such as peaches, to the canning industry himself, finalized his agreement with the canner before devaluation took place, and the canner held him to that price. So. for that quantity which the farmers delivered under the scheme of the Board, they suffered no losses as a result of devaluation.

Was there no decrease in those prices?

No. They adhered to the contract entered into before devaluation. That means that the farmers received that price. The canning industry which has to export at a low price will probably be able to prove that they have suffered losses, and the Government has already undertaken to assist them. But this R4 million on the Estimates is not necessarily the only assistance we shall give them. When the Minister of Finance announced this auxiliary scheme he stated that according to calculations the amount could easily increase to R10 million or more. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought therefore to be aware of the fact that according to the circumstances prevailing in each particular agricultural industry which exports produce, each one will be judged on its own merits, according to the prices they received on the overseas market and the losses they suffered as a result of devaluation.

Mention was made of the pineapple industry. We realize of course that the pineapple industry has problems and nobody denies that there are certain agricultural industries in which problems are being experienced. If they had no problems we would not have to include such large amounts in the Estimates. But I maintain that the accusation of the Opposition to the effect that nothing is being done and that no assistance is being rendered, or that the assistance which is being rendered, is inadequate, is wrong.

Is the assistance which is being rendered to the pineapple industry adequate?

The hon. member must not simply make a bold statement and say that problems are being experienced in the pineapple industry. There are a large number of pineapple producers who have contracts with the canners in which the prices have been fixed. Does the hon. member now want those farmers to receive additional assistance from the Government, even though they have contracts? The hon. member is merely speaking in general terms, and he states that the pineapple industry and the pineapple farmers must receive assistance. In this case it will be more specifically the manufacturer and not the farmer who deserves assistance. [Interjection.] The hon. member must give me a chance to explain this matter, which he apparently knows nothing about. It is true that there are certain pineapple producers who did not have the privilege, owing to their geographical situation or other circumstances, of entering into contracts in order to determine their prices. Some of them are experiencing problems, because they cannot compel a price which would afford them a reasonable remuneration. We will have to take them into account; we will look at their position.

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will at least realize that to help an industry one cannot go and stand on a street corner and say that one has R100,000 to pay out and those who want some can come and fetch it. It is not as easy as all that. The method according to which one must render assistance is a complicated one. Sometimes it is the case that a particular factory to which farmers have been delivering fruit, cannot continue to operate on an economic basis and then one may have to give that assistance to the factory instead of to the farmer. In other cases there are other circumstances. It is very easy to say that the farmers, or the industry, must be given assistance, but it is not so easy to determine the way in which this should be done. The position is that when representations are made to the Government by farmers, and even if the Government is quite prepared to grant that assistance, it is not so easy to say: “Here is the assistance.” After all, hon. members would at least expect that if assistance is to be granted it should be done in such a way that those people who need it the most, and that, in the first place, it reaches the right people, in the second place, it must be granted under reasonable control. One cannot throw the taxpayers’ money about in an uncontrolled way; it must be utilized on a controlled basis. The industries who put forward their case are receiving the necessary attention, and if it is possible to help them, we help them. Nor is this the first time the pineapple industry has found itself in difficulties.

A few years ago we had to grant special assistance to the pineapple industry, and we had to ask Parliament for approval for the write-off of R1 million on Langeberg, which was caused for the most part by the pineapple industry, because they had suffered great losses on pineapples. If we had not contributed that amount to them, the pineapple farmers would have had to make good those losses themselves. Therefore this is not the first time the pineapple industry is seeking assistance from the Government, nor is it the first time it will receive such assistance.

What about citrus?

I have already mentioned citrus. Negotiations are already in progress in regard to granting assistance to that industry. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also mentioned the question of freight. We are all concerned about freight. At the moment fresh negotiations are in progress with the Conference Lines in regard to freight. Freight is one of the factors which make it very difficult for us to-day to compete with our agricultural produce on overseas markets. These negotiations will be held, but at this stage I cannot say that freight will be reduced. There are certain formulas according to which these negotiations take place, and on which these agreements are based. According to those formulas it could happen that certain industries will have to contribute more heavily to freight than other industries. But I also want to tell hon. members that it is sometimes cheaper to hire ships, particularly when the citrus industry wants to export, than when the deciduous fruit industry has to undertake its marketing. But we must also remember that if the ships of the Conference Line cannot be supplied with regular consignments, it would mean a general increase of all the freight tariffs. Therefore, it is not so easy to say that at a certain stage one would be able to hire ships. Secondly, we should also bear in mind that when any kind of threat arises, we should at least have the assurance that a certain transport organization will convey our products, and that we will not have to resort to short-term hiring of ships.

I understand that the citrus industry has been given the assurance that they will be compensated for three-quarters of the losses suffered as a result of devaluation. Is that correct or is it possible I that the entire loss will be covered?

It is possibly correct. Various problems are being experienced in regard to citrus. They are not only experiencing problems as a result of devaluation, they are also experiencing those other problems to which the hon. member referred. Thus, it will not be possible to concentrate the assistance which we give the citrus industry on the problem of devaulation only; we will have to apply certain other means as well in order to assist the citrus industry, such as a subsidy on the transportation costs, per tray, or whatever it may be. We have discussed the entire matter with the Citrus Board, and of course they are not satisfied; they would like to have more. They want compensation for the entire loss of revenue which they experience over against their good years; but there are various methods. The assistance which is to be rendered to the citrus industry will not merely be compensation for losses they have suffered as a result of devaluation, but also for other problems which are being experienced in the industry.

I listened to the debate. Of course it is not so easy to furnish general replies, because so many matters were discussed which do not really merit a reply. But I would like to reply to a few basic points. In particular, I want to return to the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member, as well as others, made the assertion that this Government still, after it has been in power for 20 years, has no long-term agricultural policy, and he made this statement without furnishing any proof. He made the statement and created the impression that what the United Party wanted was a long-term agricultural policy. But if one gives some thought to the hon. member’s requests one comes to the conclusion that the United Party does not want a long-term agricultural policy, but want an ad hoc policy which has to adjust to every occasion as circumstances present themselves. I want to make the assertion, and I am going to prove it, that the entire agricultural policy of this Government is a long-term one. What is the agricultural policy of the Government in regard to its provision of services to agriculture? Our fundamental point of departure in regard to research and information is to get farmers to apply better methods on a long-term basis.

All our research is aimed at producing better seed and better processing techniques on a long-term basis, at producing better trees and combating cattle diseases more effectively, which will be of benefit to farmers on a long-term basis, and at supplying the farmer with information which can, on a long-term basis, teach them to apply better farming methods. The information is being provided precisely so as to enable the farmers to understand what branches of his industry are uneconomic and what are more lucrative. That is the purpose of our economic research. Our entire soil conservation policy is a long-term policy for conserving the soil for the future. Why would one want to conserve the soil for the future, if one does not have a long-term policy? The entire policy of soil conservation is aimed at improving the soil on a long-term basis, increasing production and making it possible for the farmers to utilize the soil to better effect. Not only is this technical information, this research, the soil conservation a long-term policy, but if the farmers in South Africa would only heed this information and comply with research and soil conservation methods, according to the policy which the Government is offering them, we will, on a long-term basis, make a great deal of progress. But our price policy is also a long-term policy.

In terms of the Marketing Act it is a long-term policy. If the hon. member conceives of a long-term price policy then he thinks that one must determine a price to-day which will still apply in 10 years’ time: he states that the advance announcement of a price for a period of 10 years is a long-term policy. But it is not a long-term policy. One can be compelled to change it again within a few weeks. But the entire purport of the Marketing Act is to afford a product long-term price stability. The purpose behind the introduction of our control boards with their stabilization funds is to establish a policy of long-term marketing. Why should one allow a board to establish a stabilization fund? Surely this is not necessary on a short-term basis? The fact that we have introduced all these boards and schemes is proof of the fact that we have done so on a long-term marketing basis. Otherwise there was no need for one to do it. We could merely let the price establish itself each year.

Now I want to add the following. There are industries in South Africa which are also being controlled under the Marketing Act, or which undertake their marketing under the Marketing Act. The deciduous fruit industry is one of these. Our citrus industry is another. Seven to eight years ago I stated at their congresses that it was time these industries began thinking of establishing a stabilization fund with a view to problems which might lie ahead, but they did not want to do so. They did not want to do so because they were receiving good prices, and they thought that those good prices would continue. And now? One is now faced with the problem of overseas market prices which have dropped. The result is that on a short-term basis they are experiencing difficulties, because they have not established stabilization funds to make provision for difficult times. I want to make the assertion that our entire price policy is aimed at ensuring long-term price stability, and that is why one cannot, under the Marketing Act, and in terms of the price agreement, change the prices every day according to circumstances. Of course it is obvious that one can make minor changes, but one cannot effect major basic changes by bringing down the price to a large extent if the production increases twofold. The price policy one follows on a long-term basis, must be such that it also takes into account the result it will have on the production of the particular product. If the price encourages the production of that particular product to too great an extent, with the result that one cannot find markets for the product, then one must make price adjustments in order to keep that industry on a sound, long-term basis.

Hon. members spoke about the mealie farmers who are dissatisfied. The hon. member for Gardens made the remark that the Marketing Act advocated price determination on the basis of production costs plus a reasonable profit, but there is no such principle in our Marketing Act. The hon. member ought to know that there is no such principle in the Marketing Act, because there are 19 different commodities which are controlled under the Marketing Act, and only three of them have a fixed price. In other words, in the case of the other commodities, one has a floor price which is not determined on the basis of production costs plus a reasonable profit. If the hon. member had told me that it was accepted to a very large extent by many people in the past that the mealie price was determined on the basis of production costs plus, then he would have had something under the mealie price regulation scheme, but under the Marketing Act there is no such provision. If there had been such a provision, the situation would have been an untenable one if many of these products had been included in the Marketing Act, because as soon as overseas markets fall, in the case of export products, and one has to ensure that the producer receives production costs plus at home, then the position for the taxpayer in the country becomes totally untenable. Perhaps I can illustrate this to the hon. member by mentioning an extremely ridiculous example. In many regions of the Karoo prickly pear leaves are perhaps the best thing to produce. That does not mean to say that they are worthless. For certain purposes they are worth something. But if one has too many of them, one cannot sell them. What would happen if one introduced a prickly pear leaf control scheme, which was based on a production costs plus? [Interjections] No, I am taking an extreme example, because only then will the hon. member be able to understand it. But let me give him another example: If one’s mealie crop in South Africa are such that one cannot sell the bulk of the crop at home, but are compelled to sell it overseas at the price one is able to obtain for it, then no government or no taxpayer in the country can undertake to continue subsidizing such an industry on the basis of production costs plus. One simply cannot do it. This is perhaps a better example for the hon. member. I thought that he would perhaps understand the simple example more easily. I find it a bit difficult to bring these things home to the hon. member, and I thought that he would perhaps be able to understand the prickly pear example more easily. Mr. Chairman, let us be realistic. Is it realistic of the United Party, or of anybody else to come here and make an attack on the Minister because he has reduced the price this year?

It is good propaganda if one is able to tell the farmers that one has pleaded for them, but it is of no avail doing these things for propagandistic purposes and then causing the industry to end up in such a mess that one will never be able to get it out of that mess. Let us consider what the position of the mealie industry is and what the Government has done this year to maintain the price on the same basis. Last year there was an amount of R35 million in the stabilization fund of the Mealie Board. The crop was 104 million bags, of which by far the greatest quantity has to be exported, and has not yet been exported On the basis of the present crop, which is regarded by many farmers as being a failure, the estimate of the Mealie Board, on which its price is calculated, is 53 million bags which, as is generally accepted, is a half-crop or a failure. In addition to that half-crop of 53 million bags, there is a further approximately 17 million bags which have to be exported, which cannot be utilized for domestic purposes. But the crop is no longer 53 million now; the estimate is that the present crop will be 63 million bags; it has gone up to 65 million bags, as the hon. member for Ladybrand stated here the other day. If one were to give the mealie producer the price he receives this year it would mean that the stabilization fund would be depleted after the present crop has been exported. That would mean that the consumer in South Africa would have to pay an additional 5 cents for mealies, and it would mean that the Government, in addition to its normal subsidy, would have to pay an additional subsidy of 9 cents per bag, and if the crop is 65 million bags, it would mean further that the Mealie Board would, towards the end of this season, be saddled with a deficit of R8 to R10 million in its stabilization fund, which the Government would then have to grant as a loan.

To close one’s eyes under such circumstances and say that this industry must simply carry on and that one must merely lay down a price and that the taxpayer must simply make a contribution to that price, would be foolish. It would be a short-term policy. One must be realistic. One must take the possibility into account that one may have an average crop of 90 million bags next year. The farmers already have a deficit of R10 million in their stabilization fund. Suppose the Government were to say that it was prepared to subsidize that additional R10 million and that it would in addition recover a further 40 or 50 cents per bag from the mealie producer in order to keep its stabilization fund strong enough to bear the export losses. But in the meantime somebody else would come along and would by means of a price determination inform the mealie industry that no matter how large their crop may be the Government will always guarantee a price which will never decrease. Surely that will be irresponsible; it would be an ad hoc short-term policy.

Are the mealie farmers so irresponsible that they will ask for these things?

Surely one asks for as much as one can get. I am not saying that the mealie farmers are irresponsible. The Mealie Board, which is the responsible body and which represents the farmers, recommended the price.

What did they recommend last year?

Last year they recommended a price which was 20 cents too high. Last year I told the hon. member in this House that if the farmers were to be given that 20 cents, they would have to contribute R12 million of the total 20 cent levy to cover the extra export losses. These are at present much higher than that figure. My statement was therefore quite correct. The events of the preceding year have proved me correct.

The hon. member also made a second statement which was supported by two other members. He sated that the difficulty in which the farmers of South Africa had found themselves to-day was due to the fact that this Government and the Minister occupied themselves with manipulating prices in agriculture Sir, no Minister has any say in regard to the prices prevailing in these industries which have problems to-day. What industries did hon. members mention here? They mentioned the wool industry. What powers of manipulation does the Government have there? They mentioned the citrus industry. What powers of manipulation does the Government have there? They mentioned the deciduous fruit industry, the canning industry and the pineapple industry. In which one of these industries does the Government have the power of manipulating prices? But the hon. member, without turning a hair, stated that the Government and the Minister had, with their price manipulation, caused these industries to find themselves in difficulties. He produced no proof; he merely made a statement. That is how unfair it is.

I can mention other industries as well.

I shall get round to dealing with the others where the Government does in fact have a hand in determining the price, namely the mealie, the wheat and the dairy industries. The production of no product in South Africa has expanded on a percentage basis to such an extent as the production of those very industries in which the Government had a hand in determining the prices, and if price manipulation took place, then surely those industries should in fact have been the very industries which did not make progress as far as production was concerned. But I am going further. In spite of the poor crop which the mealie industry had this year as a result of the drought, this industry and the other industries where there are fixed prices to-day, are those industries which have the least need to come and ask the Government for assistance But then the hon. member came along, and without turning a hair, stated that it was the price manipulation policy of the Government which had been responsible for the difficulties in which these industries had found themselves. Surely that is not the case. Not only is that not the case, but what is even worse is that the hon. member knows that it is not the case, but in spite of that he still makes this statement, and elaborates on it.

What about the high rates of interest?

I shall still come to that; the hon. member need have no fear on that score. Our entire policy rests on a long-term basis. Let us take a look at financing in agriculture. The hon. member stated that the Government does not have a long-term policy. Sir, the entire financing policy of the Government is organized on a long-term basis. The financing of the Land Bank is organized for a period of 25 years and longer. Agricultural credit and financing policy is organized for a period of 20 years and longer.

Even longer than they have been in Opposition.

Not only is it longer, but it has been established at a rate of interest which the hon. member describes as impossible—a Land Bank rate of interest of 6 per cent.

Plus.

No, 6 per cent plus nothing. If the hon. member wants to add redemption to interest, or if he wants to add assurance to interest, then there is a plus, but I am talking about the rate of interest which is 6 per cent at the Land Bank on a long-term basis, and 5 per cent on long-term and on short-term basis from Agricultural Credit. But the hon. member states that the Government does not have a long-term agricultural policy. We are settling people on Government land under water schemes; we are making dams available for irrigation purposes; we are building new dams in South Africa for the future provision of water for agriculture This is all being done on a long-term basis, but the hon. member states that the Government does not have a long-term policy.

All the things you are boasting of now are things you took over from the policy of the United Party.

Sir, shall we be realistic?’ One of the hon. members on the opposite side stated that the Orange River Dam, with which the Government has only now made a start, was their scheme. Take these things which hon. members on that side have mentioned here to-day, these industries which are experiencing problems—the pineapple industry, the deciduous fruit industry, the citrus industry, the mealie industry, etc. If the Orange River scheme had been tackled by this Government before the time to do so was ripe, where would they have sold the products from that area, and what would the effects of that have been on market prices? What would the effects have been on marketing? [Interjections.] There is a right time for building every scheme in South Africa. There is a time for doing everything on a long-term basis. The time has come for these irrigation schemes, such as the Orange River scheme, to be tackled and there will possibly be a market for those products when it is completed. After all, we do know that our consumption in South Africa is going to increase. Many of our export industries are faced with this problem. Their problem is a transitional period in the South African agriculture. Surely that must be clear to every person. Our population will double within the next 20 years, and then a large quantity of these products will be consumed. That is merely in passing. No matter what policy we follow, and I maintain that the policy of the Government is a long-term policy, we in South Africa, and the same applies to any other country, will not be able to introduce a price policy in agriculture which will eliminate price fluctuation. There will be times when prices increase, and there will be times when prices decrease. This is particularly applicable to our country where we have such climatic conditions as ours. It is impossible to lay down a long-term price policy which will never lead to a decrease in prices. If we thought we could do this, we would be living in a cloud cuckoo land; we would be bluffing ourselves. A certain product can, within one year, become 100 per cent more or 50 per cent less than it was during the previous year.

The hon. member, as well as other hon. members on the opposite side, levelled another accusation. They maintained that nothing, or almost nothing, was being done in respect of research, information and services of that kind. They also spoke about soil conservation, etc. Nobody in South Africa, and least of all the Government or I, will ever say that enough is being done in the field of agriculture, or that there are enough extension officers to meet the needs of all the people. Nor can it be said that in the field of soil conservation there is no reason for improvement. The person who says that is of course not taking the facts into account. But to allege baldly that absolutely nothing is being done, that the farmers are not being supplied with information services, or that they are being supplied with too few of these services, is also not true. The hon. member may as well glance at the annual report of the Department. I now want to quote a few figures to him from this report. He said there was no contact with the farmers. The other day I replied to a question here as to how many farming units there were in South Africa. I then said there were 90,000. Let us look at page 5 of the report. In respect of extension officers we see the following stated there—“During the year the following individual contact was made with farmers: Farm visits, 53,885.” That means that in one year more than half of the farms in South Africa were visited.

It may be that one farm was visited more than once.

It may be, but I am talking of the average. We also see that there were 27,802 personal interviews. There were 70,000 telephone conversations and 11,054 personal letters to farmers. We then come to the attendance at meetings held in regard to information. Under the two heads, “Number of Meetings” and “Joint Attendance” we find the following: Soil conservation district committees, 2,855 and 14,759; Farmers’ Days: 268 and 12,424; Short Courses, 149 and 3,225; Lectures, 1,516 and 32,788; Co-operative and other demonstrations, 430 and 2,980. Over and above that 91,000 circulars were sent out by information offices during the course of the year. But hon. members on the opposite side maintain that nothing is being done. They maintain that there is no contact between the information service of the Department and the farmers. Surely they cannot level that accusation.

The hon. member also stated that nothing was being done in respect of soil conservation. They stated that the Government was not doing its work, and that there were not enough officials and officers to undertake soil conservation work. I agree, there will never be enough. The ideal position would be for every farmer to have an official to do the necessary work on his farm. Let us glance at the report to see what the officials have done, and what consequences their work has had. I want to refer hon. members to what was done in previous years, but I do not want to go back as far as the time of the United Party. We find the following particulars on page 13 of the report of the Department. In 1961-’62 31,920 soil conservation works were approved at a joint cost of more than R4 million. Of those 31,000 which were approved, 17,000 have up to the present been almost completed and R2,244,914 has been spent on that. In other words, not even half the works which were approved in 1961-’62 have been completed by the farmers. Let us take another year. In the year 1963-’64 37,000 works were approved at an estimated cost of almost R5 million. Only 18,000 have been finalized, for which R2,614,000 has been paid out. That indicates that approval has been granted to many more works than have been carried out. Not even half the works which have been approved during the past 20 years have been completed. But hon. members do not blame the farmers for not having completed those works; they blame the Department. They say the Department is not present to do the physical work. If one sees that approximately half of the work has been completed up to now then one must agree that the extension officers’ time is in many respects being wasted when they have to measure up and approve those works, and those works are simply not completed.

The hon. member also spoke about expenditure. He took it amiss of me because the amount in respect of Agriculture on the Estimates is such a small one. The hon. member stated that he was not only talking about the Estimates; he was talking about the extra amount which appears in the Estimates. That is what the hon. member said. I quoted the figures to him, and I also want to quote a few further figures to him, for the record, as the hon. member is so fond of saying. I want to quote a few figures in regard to direct Government subsidies which the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is introducing. There are different subsidies, for example on fertilizer, cattle fodder, grazing, flood damage, rebates on fertilizers, etc., quite a miscellany. The amount requested this year is for R18,561,000. The foodstuffs subsidy of which agriculture—I am not saying only agriculture—obtains a share, is R61,000,000 this year. The administrative costs of the indirect contributions of the Department, contributions which relate to commodity services and marketing, etc., and amounts which are not recoverable from the agricultural industry, amount to R1.6 million. That is only in one Department. It is apart from the direct subsidies which were granted during that year to the citrus industry, namely an amount of R250,000. The amount of R1 million was given to the wool industry, and there was also a special contribution in respect of mealie by-products of R54,000. Let us consider Agricultural Technical Services. The amount which had to be spent by that Department, represents an average for these services, namely loans paid out to soil conservation works, subsidies paid out to soil conservation works, expenditure on technical services and research, education, etc. This represents an amount of R20 million.

Let us take water affairs. I am not talking now about money which is directly to the credit of agriculture; I am not talking now about what is to the credit of the industries. This includes non-recoverable loans, costs incurred in building works, subsidies and rebates on boreholes, subsidies for irrigation boards and recoverable loans to the irrigation boards. There are also subsidies to farmers in respect of smaller works, special flood assistance, the purchasing of building equipment, boring equipment, water works, etc. The total amount spent on all these things over a period of three years, i.e. paid in subsidies, dams built, the cost of which is not recoverable, and the smaller loans for these water works, is R101 million. That is an average of approximately R35 million a year.

Order! I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that he must not elaborate too much on water affairs. It is a separate Vote which is not under discussion now.

I am now talking about money which is being spent for agriculture, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go into that; I am merely mentioning the figures. Unfortunately the expenditure of the Department of Agriculture cannot be put under one head.

Let us examine this question a little further, let us see what is being supplied to the Land Bank. [Interjections.] That is assistance to the Land Bank at a rate of interest of 6 per cent. After all, the hon. member complained that the agricultural bank sometimes had to pay interest of 9 and 10 per cent. That is the point. But let us look further. Look what loans are being made available to the co-operatives each year, so that they can pay out their crops. The amount is R507 million per year. [Interjections.] But of course. If the Land Bank had not made it available at 6 per cent, the farmers would have had to borrow money at a rate of interest of 9 and 10 per cent—they would have had to pay it on their overdrawn accounts at their banks. That is the position. If this service had not been rendered by the State, who would have rendered it? I am mentioning these figures not because I have any doubts as to whether the Government or the State or the Land Bank should supply this service. Nor am I mentioning them to show the country what is being done for the agricultural sector. I am mentioning them because hon. members on the opposite side, when these amounts are included in the Estimates, say that this is not correct. They say that this is wrong. I have already mentioned amounts to the value of R200 million which is being spent by the Department of Water Affairs and other Departments directly on agriculture, amounts which are not recoverable. They are not loans. They do not even include the amounts appropriated by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, amounts which I have not even mentioned yet.

What about a consumers subsidy?

I did not include that there. I mentioned it as a separate item. We are always aware of the fact that certain sectors of our agricultural industry are experiencing difficulties at the moment. I also proved that when those sectors experienced difficulties, the State was prepared to help them solve their problems. We find this in the wool industry, inter alia. Hon. members are aware of this; I need not even mention it. Hon. members on the opposite side take it amiss of hon. members on this side when they differ with them. Hon. members on this side maintain that things are not going as badly as the Opposition alleges. The Opposition keeps on stating that the Government is doing nothing for agriculture. They keep on making this accusation. It is an absolute untruth. Hon. members on the opposite side know that it is not true. But the impression hon. members want to give the farmers outside is that one can ask anything under the sun of the Government and that the Government can be forced to grant it. That is the impression they are trying to create. They are implying that if the farmers have problems in regard to marketing, or as a result of droughts or anything else, the Government must compensate them in full for the losses they have suffered. If that is to be the situation, then surely the Government may as well take over agriculture in South Africa. If the Government were to undertake to indemnify and guarantee everybody at all times against all losses, then surely there is no reason to maintain an independent farmer’s class in South Africa. That is my point. But the Government will under the circumstances where problems are being experienced, as has been shown in the past, make this assistance available. But we will always make it available in such a way that the independence of the farmer will be maintained as far as possible. The hon. member for Walmer said that they did not want the Government to assist inefficient farmers, farmers who were not applying soil conservation methods. But in the same breath he quoted from the report of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, in which assistance was refused to a number of farmers, and he then criticized us for not rendering that assistance. How does the hon. member know what kind of farmers these were to whom assistance was refused? I am in full agreement with the hon. member that we cannot allow farmers to remain on the soil who are not efficient and who do not look after and conserve their soil. It is not the function of the State to keep them in production. The hon. member for Newton Park said that when we requested people to produce efficiently the prices dropped, whereas this was not the case in any other industry. He mentioned a few examples here—one of which was Iscor. He said that their production had increased but that their prices had not dropped. He also mentioned Escom and the Railways in this connection. But their productivity did not increase as a result of production per unit. The unit was also increased. If one builds two factories and their productivity increases, then one has still not increased the unit production. But the hon. member does not understand that. The hon. member admitted it. Surely it is very easy for the hon. member to understand. To increase production per unit and to increase production per factory is after all two totally different matters. If the hon. member teaches one child and receives R100 per month and he teaches 100 children at school and still receives R100 per month, then surely it is cheaper to train one child. Surely that is a simple hypothesis. But if there are 100 teachers and they each train 100 children, then it still costs R100 per teacher, and after all the costs involved are not less. The same is true in the case of morgen units. If one can produce 10 bags of mealies on a morgen, then it must cost more than it does to produce 100 bags of mealies on that same morgen. Surely that is a logical fact. That comparison made by the hon. member does not apply at all.

The same argument applies to factories.

But how can the argument apply to factories? It applies to factories or, for example, the Railways if one locomotive with its driver can pull five times as many trucks. But if one still needs a locomotive and hauls the same quantity of trucks, then this does not apply. Surely it is simple. If the same generator at Escom can generate twice as much energy, then it applies. But if one needs two generators to do that, then it does not apply. It seems to me I must teach the United Party as well now.

We must not lose sight of the efficiency factor. We must see to it that our farmers are trained to be as efficient as possible, even if it is only as far as our domestic marketing is concerned.

If your argument is correct, then the prices should surely have become lower as productivity increased.

If we continue, with our export products, to compete on overseas markets, then we will have to expand our efficiency to the greatest degree possible, because we will have to compete with farmers overseas who produce efficiently. If we are going to compete with them, with our product which is being exported thence, we will have to maintain that efficiency. If the Minister and the Department is saying this to the farmer, then it is not fitting that the hon. member should say: “As soon as efficiency increases, the income will decrease.” He is then comparing things which cannot be compared. Now the hon. member must, if he can accept responsibility, to the extent an Opposition member can accept responsibility, help us to place our industry in South Africa on a sound basis.

Reference was made here to the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture, which has published its first report.

What is your attitude to that?

I shall now tell you what my attitude to that is. Accusations have been made here that I never wanted to appoint a commission of inquiry because I had alleged that it was unnecessary. If there has ever been a justification of the policy which I have followed for the past 10 years then it is confirmed over and again by the report of that commission. I am not speaking of a few subservient matters; I am talking about the basic principles contained therein. I now want hon. members to tell me—they had such a lot to say now about the report which was expected and the investigation which had to take place—are hon. members on the opposite side prepared to accept that report as it has been laid upon the Table?

If all the officials are available to implementߪ

And the recommendations? I am asking whether hon. members are prepared to accept the basic principles in that report. I know that they will not furnish me with a reply, because if they accept it, it would be a negation of the entire standpoint they have adopted here to-day. [Interjection.] Of course it is.

Do you accept everything contained in the report?

I am not talking about the details now. I am talking about the basic principles. I accept them. I accept that our soil is subject to a great deal of over-grazing and that farming activities on certain farms will have to cease. I accept that the farmers have over-estimated the potential of their land, and that all of them cannot be helped economically. I accept that there are three kinds of farmers. That does not mean to say that I will accept every recommendation in regard to hookthorn and whitethorn. That is something else. I am talking about the broad fundamental principles. But the hon. member for Newton Park will not admit that he accepts them. If he accepts them, he negates the entire standpoint he adopted here. We will receive further reports.

If the officials are availableߪ

The hon. member must not talk about the officials; the officials have nothing to do with the principles.

I listened to this debate. I have tried to reply to the matters which were worthwhile replying to. I want to tell hon. members that the lesser requests they addressed to me in regard to local matters will be noted down by my officials and that they will be replied to in due course. This is not the right time to reply to all those requests. We shall see to it that hon. members who spoke on matters of local importance will receive replies by letter. I only hope the United Party will now be a little more objective in the rest of the discussion under this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Wool Group on this side of the House, I think it would be fitting to pay tribute to the late Dr. George van der Wath as well as Mr Geldenhuys and Mr. McGee, who lost their lives in the tragic air disaster near Windhoek. I am sure that the Committee sympathizes with those three persons who lost their lives. Dr. George van der Wath was a member of the Wool Board for 18 years and he was chairman of the Wool Board for eight years. I can assure you, Sir, that it will be difficult to find a substitute for him. His death was a heavy blow to South Africa. South Africa has lost a great son. That is why we are paying tribute to him as well as the other two members of the Wool Board who lost their lives.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London (City) said that my colleague the hon. member for Christiana had made a scandalous statement here. But now I want to remind the hon. member for East London (City) of the days when he fought an election against me in the Aliwal constituency. Does the hon. member remember how he said from platform to platform that South Africa would not be able to sell its wool, that South Africa would have to sell its wool at a lower price owing to the fact that we had left the Commonwealth Do you remember that? I think the hon. member will remember that. How can he accuse my hon. colleague of having made a scandalous statement here? We know that the Government bought up the wool at that time. We also know that the wool was sold at an enormous profit. But that profit most certainly was not paid to the agricultural industry. It was not paid to our farming community. Those profits went elsewhere. The hon. member should not make statements here merely for the sake of saying something. I am glad that he did not deny the statement he had made at Aliwal, because this is the truth. The wool industry is experiencing a difficult period at present. In the first place we have a downward trend in prices which we can, of course, do nothing about. This downward trend is attributable to international competition, and so forth. In the second place, this is the case because of the drought conditions which do not only have a detrimental effect on our wool production, but should also be blamed for the fact that wool of a very poor quality is being delivered at our harbours. Therefore this amounts to a reduced price In the third place, there is the question of the high rates of interest. Loans advanced by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are not subject to high rates of interest. The rates of interest on loans advanced by the Land Bank are not very high either. It is only 6 per cent, as the hon. the Minister said a moment ago. But our agricultural problems to-day are actually ad hoc problems in that our agricultural industry has negotiated large loans outside those two sectors.

That is what we told the Minister long ago.

Yes, that is correct. The Minister did say that. I am only repeating it

We are saying that.

Unfortunately I did not hear your speech. The rates of interest are high owing to the ad hoc loans the agricultural industry has negotiated with wool-brokers, banks and private institutions. That is the reason why our agricultural industry is struggling to-day. That is the reason why these basic difficulties have arisen. If I bought a piece of land and negotiated a loan with a body or person other than the Land Bank or the Agricultural Credit Board, I would most certainly have to bear the responsibility for that loan. After all, this is free enterprise which applies in the agricultural industry. In other words, if I made a mistake I would have to bear the consequences. That is how I see the matter. However, there is another matter I want to raise here I should like to make an appeal to co-operative societies. Certain co-operative societies are charging a very high rate of interest at present. It amounts to 10 per cent per month, compound interest. The annual rate of interest amounts to approximately 11 per cent. That is very high. Many of our people buy from co-operative societies, the result being that they have accounts there as well. Co-operative societies must reduce their rates of interest so that they may serve the real purpose for which they were established. The Government is not to blame for those rates of interest being charged by the co-operative societies. They vary from co-operative society to co-operative society.

We second that.

I do not know why the Opposition is so keen to agree with that, for these are after all facts that apply. On the contrary, the hon. the Minister or whoever is not to blame for this being the case. It is a trend which applies in the economy to-day. I should just like to proceed to another point. I want to plead for soil conservation, and here I am thinking of soil erosion on stock trails. Soil erosion on stock trails, particularly in our mountainous regions, is a major problem, today. The divisional councils with their limited funds cannot implement soil conservation on our stock trails. It is simply out of the question. That is why I want to plead that those stock trails should be fenced off, i.e. in those places where the soil is being washed away. The State must contribute towards combating soil erosion there. The area affected extends over many miles In one district in my constituency alone—I do not want to go into detail—there are stock trails that are 620 miles in length.

Have they all been proclaimed?

Yes, they have been proclaimed. Then there are secondary roads that are used by four-wheel drive vehicles. Erosion also applies to those roads, just as it does in the case of stock trails. Something must be done here so that the divisional councils may continue to combat soil erosion on those roads. In the course of time the Drakensberg mountain range will no longer have the grass coverage it had previously. This is the case because of the fact that the top-soil there is steadily being washed away. If the top-soil on these mountains is washed away, the plains down below suffer the same fate. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, several speakers made reference here this afternoon to the citrus industry. I should like to reply to a few of the arguments advanced by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the loss suffered because of devaluation and the fact that only 75 per cent of that loss would be made good. The hon. the Minister gave us the assurance that it would not only be 75 per cent, but that compensation would be given in other ways as well. I just want to explain that the citrus industry itself asked for this type of compensation. The citrus exchange fixes a price which corresponds more or less with last year’s price. And on that basis of 238 cents per carton the price was calculated. And since they have full control over our citrus on the overseas market, they think that they can maintain this price of 238 cents on the overseas market—in the United Kingdom as well. For that reason we believe that owing to these measures announced by the Government and the supplementation as regards devaluation, it will be possible to give the citrus farmers at least the same price they obtained last year. Basically the citrus industry is a sound industry. Over the years it has been developed into a tremendously strong industry. The fact that it is experiencing difficulties at present, is simply because its costs have increased over the years However, the industry has been organizing its affairs very well and it is to-day, as I said, basically sound. It has now approached the Government for assistance, and that assistance must be granted in certain ways. But let us see first how it came about that the citrus industry landed in this position. This industry is dependent upon an overseas market, and therefore it cannot influence prices there, except perhaps through the quality and standard of its product and through advertising the product. As regards the domestic market, the citrus industry has to be satisfied with covering its costs only. In fact, the industry has always had to subsidize fresh fruit and juice sold domestically. As regards the domestic market, therefore, the citrus farmers have never been able to make any profit. What is more, the industry has also been severely handicapped by droughts. But the industry is effecting tremendous expansion in regard to its overseas markets, and is at present marketing its products in as many as 21 countries. Production has increased from 9 million lion cartons a few years ago to more than 20 million cartons to-day.

What can we do to meet the problems of this industry? The Minister said that our production methods must be efficient. But I think this industry is an efficient one, owing to the technical assistance granted by the Government and the good farming methods applied by the industry. Of course, it does not always work out perfectly. Droughts, for instance, can bring down the yield per tree, and as the yield per tree drops, the unit cost rises. But the greatest rise in cost was caused by things over which citrus farmers had no control. Whereas the costs over which citrus farmers do have control have shown an increase of only 43 per cent, the costs of things over which they have no control, such as freightage, have increased by 129 per cent. A moment ago the hon. member for Albany said that the citrus industry was spending R4 million on advertising. His figure is wrong—the correct figure is R980,000. This year it is being pushed up to R 1,200,000.

I talked about sales promotion and not advertising.

Since the costs involved here are high, we appreciate the assistance, amounting to R250,000, which the Government granted the industry. Its effect is a direct cost reduction. This is one way in which we can cope with this situation. The Government has also decided to grant assistance to factories. Over the past year the citrus industry has granted factories a rebate of 11c per bag to enable them to export fruit juice. Owing to the Government subsidy of 9c per bag, of which citrus farmers and the industry will receive 4½c each, the rebate granted by the industry up to now is to a large extent being cancelled This subsidy will cost the State R628,000. As regards the export of grapefruit segments, the subsidy of 10c per bag which the factories are going to receive, can also be a great help. This subsidy will cost the State R100,000. This, too, is a contribution which we appreciate.

A moment ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about devaluation. We are very glad that the Government has already set aside this amount of almost R1,300,000 for the citrus farmers. The citrus farmers will struggle as a result of devaluation, but the Government said that it would help the industry. That is why we also appreciate this assistance that was granted by the Government. Is it worth-while helping an industry such as the citrus industry? I want to suggest that it is in fact worth-while. In 1934 the State also had to help the citrus farmers. It was done by reducing freightage. Freightage was reduced from R5.25 to R4.75 per cubic ton. In 1938 freightage was once again reduced to R4 per cubic ton By way of comparison I can mention that freightage is R20.50 per cubic ton at present. Freightage has therefore increased by more than 400 per cent over the years.

What about railage?

Railage was also reduced during those years. It was only reduced by a few cents, but it also helped. The then Government also paid a subsidy of 10c per carton, which also helped the farmers a great deal. This assistance that was granted at that time enabled the citrus industry to keep going. That is what we want to see now. We want the industry to keep going. At present there are 3,500 citrus farmers in the country and they employ 1,300 Whites and 40,000 non-Whites, apart from the large number of labourers employed by them during the packing season. The country as a whole has therefore benefited by the citrus industry, which was kept going because the Government was willing to grant assistance. Over the past 20 years the citrus industry has earned for our country an amount of R380 million in foreign exchange. Although I have now thanked the Government for the various measures which are going to cost almost R3 million, I want to say that I am anxious about the shipping contracts in particular. If a plan cannot be devised in regard to this matter, it will be very difficult in future. However, I am sure that the industry will have to find a way out. A few farmers will perhaps go bankrupt, but they will probably be the inefficient ones. I should therefore be glad if the Government could examine this question of the shipping contract. The other costs of the citrus industry may also be examined so as to see whether it will be possible to reduce certain costs by a few cents.

Such as railage.

Yes, such as railage. This is one of the matters which may be examined. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, a moment ago the Chief Whip of the National Party asked us in an interjection why we on this side of the House never seconded any good suggestion made by a member on the other side of the House. However, we are almost in complete agreement with what was said by the last two hon. speakers, with the exception of one point that was raised by the hon. member for Aliwal. He said that I had said in his constituency that we would never again be able to sell our wool. The hon. the Minister said that I had said that the price of wool would never oome down again. He said that I knew that it was the truth and that I would testify to the truth. The hon. the Minister said that I had said that the price of wool would never again be lower than it had been in previous years. How does that tally? Surely, I could not have said at one place that we would never be able to sell our wool again, and then at another place that the price of wool would never be lower. It just does not work out that way. I am very glad that the hon. the Minister is present On two occasions already the hon. the Minister said in this House that I had said at a certain stage that the price of wool would never come down again. He said that I was an honest man and that I would admit it. The hon. the Minister ought to be ashamed of himself. For 14 years the hon. the Minister and his predecessor and I, as chairman of the National Wool Growers’ Association, shared platform after platform from which I warned farmers from time to time that they should not pay so much for their land in view of the fact that the danger existed that the prices of their products would come down. We went further than that. Were the reserve prices of wool ever increased during the many years in which I was chairman of the Wool Commission? No, they were maintained at a steady level. The intention was that the price of the product could perhaps come down, so that too much would have to be bought in.

When you said that in 1951 there was no reserve price at all.

Would I have said that in 1951 when, at that stage, I was chairman of the National Wool Growers’ Association? What I said is on record, and I can bring it to the hon. the Minister Time and again in the presidential addresses I delivered as chairman I warned against the purchase of expensive land. The hon. the Minister and I were agreed on this matter. It is an unfair remark to make.

As I listened to the hon. the Minister, he talked himself into such a tangle in the course of his long speech that it was a case of “hoe mens dieper poog te delven, hoe mens meer bederf ontmoet” (the deeper one attempts to delve, the more corruption one meets). The hon. the Minister referred to the Orange River scheme and said that there was a time for everything. He said that if the Orange River scheme had been completed earlier, there would have been over-production of primary products such as maize and pineapples. He mentioned these two products specifically. He said that the problems would then have been even greater. In the same breath he said that the production per unit, as far as agriculture was concerned, was increasing all the time. In other words, if the production per unit kept on increasing—the maize and dairy industries prove that to us—owing to scientific advances and improved methods, we should never undertake the Orange River scheme. Surely, then the hon. the Minister should say that we should not undertake it. This is what one can conclude with reference to that absurd remark made by the hon the Minister in regard to the Orange River scheme.

I want to return to the pineapple industry. The hon. the Minister accused me of knowing nothing about it, and said that I should not talk about it. My feet are planted four-square in that industry.

You do have four; that is true.

To my regret I do stand in that industry. The hon. the Minister’s excuse for not having done anything for the pineapple industry up to this stage, is that he must also do it for the factories. He says that as though he does not have at this stage the statistics in regard to what has been supplied to the factories by means of contracts. He says that as though he does not know who the growers are who have not supplied products to the factories by means of contracts. I want to agree with the hon. member for Humandorp, who expressed his thanks, as far as the citrus industry was concerned, for the fact that there was already an indication of what was being done and what the Government was prepared to do for the citrus industry in regard to devaluation However, the pineapple season is almost over and there are virtually no pineapples for export and local consumption. It looks as though nothing will come of the next pineapple crop in September, because the pineapple plants are not even in bloom. Does the hon. the Minister want to tell me that up to this stage he has not yet been able to make an announcement in respect of the pineapple industry, namely that he wants to help them and in what way he wants to do so?

But the crop has not been sold yet.

So that is the reason. Since so many arguments are being advanced in this House—and particularly by the hon. the Minister—in regard to the wonderful assistance the Government is granting all the primary industries, and since it is said that everything possible is being done, I want to ask him to permit me to read a newspaper clipping here. This report was published in a newspaper of a neighbouring state on 3rd April, 1968. The Minister of Agriculture of that country made a statement, and the report reads as follows—

What about it?

I am coming to the point. What an impatient Deputy Minister! The report states further—

The hon. the Minister accuses us of suggesting that nothing is being done by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Surely, that is not true. After all, the hon. the Minister knows that we always base our arguments on the fact that not enough steps are being taken. Nobody in this House would be so irresponsible as to say that nothing is being done. I want to use one of the arguments that was used by the hon. the Minister as well. The hon. the Minister referred to soil erosion. Later on I want to quote some figures that are even more complete than those quoted by the hon. the Minister, but I just want to mention that the number of farm works approved up to and during 1967, amount to 528,766. The number of farm works that were completed, amount to 247,773; in other words, not even half of them. It is in all fairness that I now want to know whether the farmers are perhaps unwilling to carry them out Or do they not feel like it? Or are they not interested? After all, there is only one reason for this, namely that the farmers are unable to finance the other half of the works, and since they are unable to finance that half, those works are not being carried out. [Interjections.] It is no use the hon. the Minister being impolite, because that is something we can all be.

It is not impolite. I furnished figures in respect of the period from 1961 up to the end of last year.

I am referring to the figures from 1947 to 1967. I also said that by the end of 1967, 50 per cent of the total number of approved works, i.e. in respect of the whole period, had not yet been completed. The reason I advance is that the farmers cannot finance these works themselves. After all, this is obvious, for otherwise the farmers would have done so. In other words, the financial position of those people is such that they cannot even carry out their veld, water and soil conservation works In an industry where arable land to the value of R400 million washes down to the sea every year, people are not in a position to carry out the necessary conservation works. This is the basic problem. This indicates that the farmers do not have the necessary financial means. That is why we are repeatedly saying that the assistance granted to the farmers is inadequate. It is of no use to hon. members to say that we on this side of the House are suggesting that the Department of Agriculture does not grant assistance to the farmers. Nor is it of any use to them to say that the assistance granted is adequate. The assistance is not adequate and this sector is lagging behind and suffering. This is virtually the only sector in the entire community that has lagged behind. The assistance granted to them must be of such a nature that they will be in a position to conserve our arable land. If out of a total of 528,000 approved works only 247,000 have been carried out so far, I want to ask where our agricultural policy is taking us. What course are we adopting in respect of this industry? How are we saving the country? How are we saving our arable land? Of what use is it to us to argue back and forth here and to maintain that the assistance granted to the farmers is adequate and that they are doing well, if they are unable to prevent the arable land from being washed away? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon. member in his wild statements which he dished up with a very strong pineapple sauce. I do not even want to refer to his woolly past either, but it does remind one of the little song: “Baa baa black sheep, have you any wool?”

I want to discuss two topical matters affecting the maize farmer in particular. Firstly, I want to raise a matter of a contentious nature about which there is great difference of opinion, but which is nevertheless very topical to the maize farmer, and that is the matter of differential maize prices. In this connection I refer to the information paper issued by the Mealie Board in July, 1967, and to a recent statement in “Mielienuus”. In the latter publication it is stated that it is the intention to introduce this differential basis in 1969.

It is a fact that we are highly appreciative of the work that is being done by the Mealie Board. This Board has a particularly responsible task to perform, and that is to ensure the orderly marketing of one of the most important agricultural commodities in this country. We do not envy this board its task, particularly in the light of what the hon. the Minister said here. As far as the question of differential mealie prices is concerned, the board has an extremely complicated problem to deal with. I want to summarize this problem by saying that the Mealie Board finds itself in the position that, with a controlled price and a market mechanism consisting of a one-channel marketing system, it nevertheless wants to allow room for the economic laws of supply and demand. However, the scheme as published in this information paper, and the illustration of its effects in respect of various loading points, as set out in Annexure IV of this paper, and the establishment of premium and discount areas, bring certain anomalies to the fore

I do not want to condemn this principle out of hand, but I consider it my duty to point out that this scheme, as published, is based on the mileage by rail between loading points and inland consumer points, but the scheme does not take into account the same factor of mileage to points of export. Now, there is serious concern and doubt among producers and producers’ organizations, responsible agricultural bodies, as to what effect this will have, and they have stated their views in this regard. On economic grounds arguments may be advanced for and against this principle, but the fear remains with the producer that the establishment of premium areas will have the effect that the cultivation of marginal and submarginal regions in the mealie industry will be encouraged. Last year we spoke of six million-plus morgen which were being used for the cultivation of maize; this year we are already speaking of seven million morgen.

I concede that it may be possible to eliminate many of the hitches in the system as published, but under the circumstances in which we find ourselves, and in view of the difference of opinion existing in regard to this matter, I want to plead with the Minister that over-hasty action should not be taken as regards the implementation of this principle of differential maize prices, and that the agricultural organizations be afforded a further opportunity to state their views and their reasons for holding those views. In other words, I am pleading for the retention of the status quo until such time as further and very careful consideration can be given to this principle of differential prices in respect of one of the most important agricultural products of our country.

Secondly, I want to raise another topical matter, and in this regard I associate myself with the following statement made on page 20 of the latest report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services—

I associate myself with this statement, and because the report reflects the true position, this is also being emphasized by my voters. A great deal has been done to make the farmers aware of this danger of wind erosion. A large number of lectures have been given and discussions have been led by, inter alia, officials who addressed meetings of soil conservation committees, farmers’ associations, farmers’ days, and so forth. For this very reason more fundamental and intensified research in this field is being strongly insisted upon, particularly in respect of the types of soil which are known in those regions and also to the Department as pale sand and red sand. Proven agricultural techniques and practices have in fact been propagated, but there is an urgent need for more purposeful research to be undertaken in this connection. I am aware of the fact that this matter is receiving the attention of the Department as far as the planning of its research work is concerned. The Department is very active in this regard, and research in connection with wind erosion in the Highveld region forms part of a comprehensive long-term programme of providing information and undertaking production and fundamental research. In order to establish what farming practices should be applied in order to control wind erosion, one first has to determine what amount of soil is lost under any particular system. The scientific basis of the research comprises a study of various factors, and because this is the case, and since wind erosion is influenced by wind velocity, soil binding and the aerodynamics of soil particles, fundamental research will have to include, inter alia, a basic survey study of wind directions, wind velocity, soil mobility, rainfall intensity and distribution patterns as well as a basic investigation in regard to soil binding by means of humus, the stability of the soil and the type of crop, and so forth. All the preparations for such a project have already been made by the Department in its planning activities. All that remains to be done now, is to find suitable testing-grounds, because research can only be carried out on proper testing-grounds in loco, and preferably in the Highveld region and in the North-Western Free State. The preparatory work has already been done. The farmers are waiting for this. They are prepared for it, and we only need two testing-grounds for these two types of soil, and I have already received representations in this regard from my constituency. From inquiries I have made I know that these projects in connection with the combating of wind erosion have already been drawn up properly and that they are only awaiting approval and implementation. For this reason I want to submit a plea to the Minister to-day on behalf of the regional interests of the North-Western Free State that, if these projects have not been approved yet. they should be approved as soon as possible; and if these projects have already been improved in the meantime since I raised this matter during the last few months I plead that they be implemented as soon as possible. By that I mean that this research, which is so important to the mealie farmer of the North-Western Free State and of South Africa, should be commenced with this year already.

To sum up, this is what I am pleading for: Firstly, that we should not act over-hastily in implementing the policy of differential maize prices and secondly, that the official hurdles should be cleared more rapidly in implementing this research programme in respect of the combating of wind erosion.

Since Friday we have had a very good example of how negative an Opposition can really be. I have listened, but nowhere have I heard a voice that was encouraging to us in any way or that put forward something that the Opposition was offering instead of the things which they reject in the policy of the Government. It is possible, though, that listening to their arguments may cause certain people to become confused. However, there are two facts which I find reassuring. If the position is as the Opposition wants to make it out to be, and if the farmers in general are faring as badly as is being suggested, one wonders why it is that there is such a tremendous demand for land, such tremendous land-hunger. Is the fact that the demand is increasing in this way not proof that there are so many people who want to go in for farming? Surely this serves to contradict the statements made by the Opposition. If this is only a political manoeuvre on their part, I think it is time for the Opposition to start learning. It has followed this method for 20 years now, and in this period of 20 years it has lost all the rural constituencies in which it tried to represent the farmers. I think it is time that the Opposition learnt this lesson.

I just want to deal with a few other matters briefly. I believe that every farmer should be aware of what he wants to achieve and should have a preconceived goal. He should know what he is striving to achieve and he should know how to achieve it. I am thinking of the meat producer, for example. I often feel convinced that the meat producer is not properly informed as to the final product he wants to produce. The grain farmer knows what grain he must produce, he knows what price is paid for it. and so forth, and we find the same position in various fields of agriculture, but I find that the meat producer is not properly informed as regards the various grades he should produce. Most farmers believe that they must send a fat animal to the market, and to my mind that is not good enough at all. I believe that the farmer must receive guidance and must be informed as to how to obtain the best grades. I should like to illustrate this briefly. A large and well-known meat agency took it upon itself to organize a farmers’ day and to invite a number of leading farmers, clients of the agency, to attend. They slaughtered various animals there and gave the farmers an opportunity to grade those cattle and sheep. Mr. Chairman. I saw the results, and it was almost tragic to see how ignorant the farmers were of their own products. I honestly think that it is necessary to educate the farmer in this regard. If the farmer thinks that he has sent a fat animal to the market and he does not get the desired grading or result, he is dissatisfied, and when he is dissatisfied we hear all kinds of complaints and accusations being made against the markets, and so forth. I think that a good deal can be done in this regard.

Sir, we recently celebrated the Festival of the Soil. This is probably very praiseworthy, and although I do not want to say anything about the name at this stage, I do feel that we did not actually celebrate a festival because we were happy, as one is when you celebrate a festival, because of what the soil had achieved. In point of fact I feel that we organized this Festival in order to have an opportunity of saying to one another, not only once, but repeatedly, “We must take care; the writing is on the wall; our soil is going to ruin”. This thought has been driven home very strongly lately, and I do not want to elaborate on it now. I also have the greatest appreciation for what is being done by the Department concerned in order to help in this respect, but it does seem to me as though urgent attention will have to be given to this matter in some quarter or another. My constituency is divided into at least two sub-regions, in the same way as the whole of the country is divided into such regions. In one of those sub-regions I met with quite a number of problems in connection with soil conservation works, guidance, and so forth. In the course of last year I was also in close contact with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in this connection. Sir, I just want to mention these few facts to you: In one of those regions, which covers an area of more than five million morgen, I found that about a month ago there was not one single technical officer in the local office. I made inquiries and discovered that in the case of a particular office two of the technical officers had simply walked out one day and had gone to offer their services elsewhere. I feel that in those cases the cause of those persons resigning from or leaving the service must be examined very carefully. I feel that we must give first-hand attention to the matter and must try to establish the cause. In those offices in which technical officers are so scarce or where there are no technical officers at all it happens that as a result the extension officer is unable to do his work properly. He is forced to attend to matters to which he should not be called upon to attend, and the result is that his own work suffers as well. It would appear to me as though the extension officers, and in many cases the technical officers as well, are forced to do work which ought to be done by an ordinary female clerk. I do not think that these persons should be called upon to do ordinary correspondence and work of that nature. I feel that as far as the extension officers are concerned the time has arrived for us to bear in mind the fact that they are persons with a reasonably high standard of training. That work is not being done by unqualified persons. They have undergone a long course of training, and they are persons of high rank. A large percentage of these extension officers have obtained master’s degrees, and in many cases the working conditions of these persons are such that in my opinion they contribute to their leaving the Service. [Time expired.]

I hope that I shall have time to come back to a matter raised by the hon. member for De Aar, namely, the question of beef, but I first want to pursue further with the hon. the Minister the position of the pineapple industry. Sir, I do so because first of all I want to impress upon the Minister the fact that the pineapple industry had its troubles before devaluation and that to a large extent devaluation has merely accentuated those troubles. Secondly, I want to impress upon him that it is an industry, like the citrus industry, in which these people try to help themselves by improving their efficiency and by other means. The citrus industry has tried to help themselves by trying to develop other markets overseas at very great cost to themselves. The result is that the industry has completely changed its marketing pattern overseas. It is to-day very much less dependent on the United Kingdom market. In the same way, as I was saying, when my time expired, the pineapple producers have tried to help themselves by switching over to mixed farming and particularly to small stock farming in the coastal area of the Eastern Cape. They had to do it at great cost because parasites, both internal parasites and external parasites in the case of small stock, represent a major problem there; it means high cost of production and, secondly, as far as external parasites are concerned, you have very severe problems such as heartwater and so on, which meant that the small stock had to be immunized or that they had to go for an intensive footbath dipping programme. Sir, I mention this to illustrate that these people did try to help themselves. They succeeded to a very large extent. In one district, for example, the number of sheep rose in ten years from 4,000 to 40,000, a remarkable achievement. But Sir, these people are again in trouble now because of devaluation and for various other reasons. I want to handle this with a certain amount of circumspection, because I do not want to embarrass any particular canning firm.

Mr. Chairman, what has happened, is this. I shall have to name one particular canning firm, namely Langeberg. Because of these various devaluation troubles, Langeberg is apparently in difficulties as regards the keeping open of one of their factories, the factory at Port Elizabeth. The hon. the Minister said that possibly one of the means to assist the pineapple industry, would be to assist a factory rather than to assist producers, perhaps. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this point. I am not speaking in favour of Langeberg, nor against them. I would not like to take sides between Langeberg and. private canners, or vice versa. But I am raising this, because a large number of the pineapple producers are affected by the closing of this particular Langeberg factory. If this factory has to close down, these people are going to be in a most unenviable position. Because, in the first instance, there is only one other canning factory in Port Elizabeth, and if this factory closes down and no other arrangements can be made for canning their produce, it means that they are going to be completely dependent upon this other factory, and there is going to be no competition whatever west of the Fish River, as far as the canning of their produce is concerned. Alternately, they will have to transport their produce from west of the Fish River right across to the East London area in order to have it canned there. Let us say that the alternative carrying facilities available to them on that side, are limited, and probably not all the produce could be transferred. But if they are to transfer it, they immediately come up against the question of the cost of transport.

I just want to say—and I am glad the hon. the Minister is here—that one of the troubles that is going to be one of the major troubles to the industry, just as it has been in the past as regards the citrus industry, is going to be the hon. the Minister’s colleague, namely the hon. the Minister of Transport. I have raised before the question of the road motor transport charges on pineapples from the Peddie area to East London. The Peddie area is actually considerably nearer to East London than these producers who have been supplying the Port Elizabeth factory of Langeberg. Previously the figure, I was told then, was round about R4 a ton, and that was at a time when the producer’s price was R20 per ton. Even if we assume that the net price of the producer has not been lowered and it has come down—my latest information, incidentally, is that the figure is not round about R4 per ton, but probably a bit higher; something round about R4.55 per ton—the producers on the western side of the Fish River, if they were to use road motor transport to East London, would have to pay an even higher rate. That is a tremendous slice out of the gross return of the producer. He has to pay something like R4 per ton out of a price of R20. It amounts to 20 per cent. The hon. the Minister may say they should provide their own transport. A large number of these growers are in financial difficulties. They owe large amounts of money to banks and other commercial institutions, and many of them are not in the position to finance their own transport.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? I should like to ask the hon. member whether, in order to achieve greater efficiency, it would not be better in his opinion to concentrate on one factory in East London where all the produce from the Peddie area is sent instead of sending these products to two factories, one in Port Elizabeth and one in East London?

Mr. Chairman, I shall answer that gladly. The hon. member knows more about the canning industry than I do, and I think he can probably answer that question better than I can. I think he will agree with me that, when this factory was originally bought in Port Elizabeth, it was probably bought as a not very efficient unit, and that has been one of the reasons for the difficulties. I think the hon. member and I are in agreement on this point. So it may well be easier to concentrate on the East London side.

Are you in favour of giving some special help to the Langeberg members? It is not a catch question; I only want to know your view.

Let me put it to the hon. the Minister in this way. The particular point I want to make is in regard to the question of transport charges at the moment. This is one question that has to be solved, and it is something which is affecting the whole industry, and not necessarily merely the producers who are tied to Langeberg.

I hope the Minister is going to regard the problems of the pineapple industry with a very sympathetic ear indeed. I have said on previous occasions that when that industry was in trouble, the farmers were able to switch to other forms of production. They diversified their farms. But since that has happened we know what has happened to the wool market. We had a debate here to-day which also concerned wool. With the fairly high costs of production those people have been very badly hit by the drop in the wool price. We know further what has happened to the mohair market which was also another product which they tried to produce. That market collapsed completely last year. These avenues of production are no longer open to these people, and if they cannot carry on with their pineapple production they are going to be in particularly big trouble. I have not got accurate figures, but the last time the pineapple industry collapsed, there was very large-scale unemployment caused amongst the Bantu-workers because the industry is a labour-intensive industry. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall be pardoned if I do not respond to the speech made by the hon. member for Albany. I know too little about the pineapple and canning industries. It appears to me as though he made a very clear statement of some of the problems of the industry, and I believe that the hon. the Minister will give him an adequate reply in this regard.

I want to devote the few minutes at my disposal to what I consider to be a very important matter, and that is. to ask that renewed attention should be given to the introduction of some or other form of agricultural insurance for the benefit of the South African farmer. I want to address this request to the hon. the Minister. To my mind there is a serious lack in this regard as far as the agricultural industry in South Africa is concerned. In spite of the many objections raised against a State-aided comprehensive crop insurance scheme, and in spite of the fact that the investigation instituted by the Minister yielded very few promising results, I do want to avail myself of this opportunity to plead for sympathetic reconsideration of this matter. If a crop insurance scheme proves to be impracticable at the moment, I want to plead that renewed attention should at least be given to a production costs insurance scheme. It is my considered opinion that this is of urgent importance, particularly to the crop farmer in this country with the many disasters, problems and risk factors to be faced by him. In this regard I find myself in the company of the S.A.A.U., which has pleaded for a comprehensive crop insurance scheme. S.A.A.U. represents the majority of the agriculturally active farmers of South Africa. I also find myself in the company of the American Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, which has proved over a period of more than 20 years that such a scheme can be applied successfully, to the great benefit of the American farmer. In one of their latest reports to the American Congress they declare that they are making progress and that a turning-point was reached in respect of this form of insurance in 1961, with the result that they are now applying it on an ever-broader basis. I quote from one of their first reports—

In their latest report they declare—

I certainly do not believe in taking over all American ideas which are blown over to this country. I am only making these quotations because I believe that agricultural conditions in America are so similar to those in South Africa that a scheme which is applied successfully in America can be tackled successfully in South Africa as well.

Farming has developed into a highly scientific undertaking which, because of its intensive nature, calls for a large risk capital investment. Surely we all know this, and it is this very factor which has to be taken into account in this regard. In the private sector virtually all risk capital investment is insured, with the attendant increase in the security and stability factors. In agriculture, however, insurance is still at a minimum. The facilities offered by Sentrakas and Boerehael are already yielding good results, but in my opinion cover only a very limited field. A more comprehensive scheme of larger scope is what is required and what should receive more attention. I am convinced that it is worthwhile to give serious attention to such a scheme which can alleviate the harmful and frustrating effects of the risk factor in agriculture. It seems so acceptable to me because it differs so fundamentally from the methods and procedures thus far adopted by the State in financing farmers when they find themselves in financial difficulties. But it must not, will not and need not neutralize the praiseworthy financial aids which the Minister and the State make available to the farmer who has financial problems. It can be supplementary and parallel to these and can help the farmer to rely on his own strength to a larger extent in recovering from and starting afresh after every disaster suffered by him.

In the short time at my disposal I obviously cannot go into the details of the scheme. However, I want to emphasize the following points. It is clear that private companies are unwilling or unable to undertake so risky an insurance scheme, and consequently the farmer of South Africa is oblighed to turn to the State for assistance, just as the American farmer has done. I want to say that in the first place the State is expected to undertake only the administrative part of the scheme. This will amount to approximately a quarter of the responsibilities. In the second place the farmer will pay the premiums, which are so determined that the scheme will be self-supporting. In the third place a reserve fund for particularly disastrous years can gradually be built up by means of a levy on the premium capital. In the fourth place only those disasters over which the producer had no control will be covered. Initially crop farmers only will be covered, on a voluntary basis. Participation will be limited to persons who apply correct farming methods. No speculation or profit-making will be allowed. In my view the main object is to assist the highly capitalized farmer who already has a backlog of debt liabilities and who is in addition hit by disasters, to recover so much by means of crop insurance or at least by production costs insurance that he will be able to plant his new crop from his own resources and without extra assistance and extra loans, which will again entail capital redemption and interest. This is the fundamental reason why I am advocating this scheme and why this idea is of great importance to me. In my opinion it will promote greater security and stability. It will provide support particularly to the small farmer, the middle class crop farmer and the young farmer starting out, because it is particularly these farmers who, as a result of the smaller units farmed by them, are unable to build up sufficient reserve capital in good years to be able to survive the years in which disasters and droughts occur. The farmers in this category represent the vast majority of our rural primary producers. I know them; I live amongst them; I am acquainted with the day-to-day and seasonal problems which they come up against. Many of them are being forced to leave the rural areas and to move to the towns, and in this way we are losing fine agricultural talent and sound potential which we should retain in the rural areas. I believe this scheme can make a considerable contribution in establishing a sound agricultural economy and ensuring that we have a happy farming community. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this is a race against time. The United Party really gave me the impression to-day that they wanted to be one up on this side of the House as regards the advice they have given us about agricultural matters. They reminded me of the little girl who arrived at school one morning and thought she had something new to tell her friends. She was one up on them, because they would not be able to say what she was going to say. She put out her tongue at them and said: “Hah my grandmother has died!”

I want to point out that South Africa is developing into an industrial giant. Now hon. members may ask me what this has to do with agriculture. My reply is: everything. In one single issue of Tegniek, dated February, 1968, I read 17 reports in which glowing tribute was paid to the present vitality of commerce and industry. Under such circumstances our agriculture must grow and not wither. As a matter of fact, our agriculture is the cause of the present prosperity in commerce and industry. Agriculture must benefit by this, because it creates a domestic market and the domestic market is still better than any foreign market. Industrial development produces workers, workers produce families, families produce consumers, consumers are eaters, eaters want food, and the food comes from agriculture and nowhere else, unless we farm on such a basis that we have to import food for the industrial workers, and this must not happen.

Recently I read an article in the South African Digest under the heading “The Republic At Fairs”, and the report itself stated—

This covers the whole of Europe and America, east and west. Such action cannot merely serve as industrial advertising without agriculture benefiting thereby and without agriculture being given credit for having made possible those industrial undertakings which take part in those exhibitions overseas. In making possible what I have mentioned, a sound agricultural industry remains the primary stimulant, and without it secondary and tertiary industries cannot flourish except on the unsound basis of, for example, importing.

I shall now proceed to say a few words about our soil. I am a farmer and I confine myself to the soil and the care of the soil. In this regard I just want to say the following. In the annual report of the Soil Conservation Board we read the following—

To me this is the same as studying the will of a dying man instead of calling in a doctor in an attempt to save his life. Surely you know the jingle: “Ha, ha! Father is in his last hours, all his possessions are ours!” We must not cultivate this attitude towards the soil. Dr. S. J. du Plessis, chief policy director of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, mentioned the fact that the percentage of land in South Africa owned by the State is still too low. He said, inter alia, that in America it is between 30 and 40 per cent, and in Australia it is 90 per cent, but in South Africa it is only 5 per cent. South Africa should have more catchment areas under State control in order to conserve them. I would even say that when the sponge in which the water is collected is conserved, even if it is without one single dam, consumers of the water from that sponge must be made subject to a water levy. After all, they Will then have the use of that water which is conserved by the State, by means of public money, in the upper reaches of the rivers concerned.

If one wants fruit, one must look after the tree, and if one wants to use water, one must keep the sponge filled. In our love of nature we notice only the flower, the shrub, the tree, while the soil, which is the source of all this beauty, takes second place. The approach should be: Nature conservation through soil conservation, and soil conservation for nature conservation. We are already paying a terrible price for the carelessness of our forbears. Are we not running up an account which posterity will not be able to pay? I lack the time to mention in this connection what I read about the deterioration of pasture land in the O.F.S. region. Sixteen shocking facts are evident as regards soil neglect. The sick and dying mother of all forms of life is being stripped to the bone by her children, while giving her last drop. But do not always think that the farmer is the only one to blame. Roads are being built, railway lines are being constructed, and similar activities are taking place. I have here a whole list of these, but I cannot mention them all.

Mr. Chairman, let us conserve our land. It is said, “See Rio and die.” Now I say, let us conserve our land, and then we can say—

I now return to the beginning of my speech, which I thought less important and therefore omitted. Yes, sometimes the whips expect one to make a blood and thunder and “what-have-you” speech, not to use a stronger word. Now my difficulty is that I never reach that “what-have-you” stage; I never get beyond the first two stages, because of my gentle nature. Therefore it so happens that when blood, thunder and “what-have-you” are called for, I do not easily get a turn to speak.

There are two basic things in connection with farming. The first is its unpredictable aspect, and the second its irrevocable aspect. The unpredictable aspect is, for example, the degree of germination there will be, the plagues and pests that might occur, climatic conditions and finally, marketing. The irrevocable aspect is this. Whatever you have put into the soil, you will have to reap in six months’ time, and you will have to sell your produce at whatever price you can obtain, whether it be a fixed price or a free-market price. Then it often happens that the farmer cannot obtain the short-term high prices, and cannot miss the short-term low prices. Mr. Chairman, this is the end.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order 23.