When my speech was interrupted last night to make way for a very unfortunate discussion, a debate which, in my opinion, will boomerang on the United Party and which will also be to the detriment of South Africa …

Order! That matter has nothing to do with this Vote.

… I was warning against a point of view that was gaining ground, i.e. that it was desirable to reduce the number of farmers in South Africa drastically as long as production continued to increase. What this amounts to basically, is the gradual elimination from our agricultural setup of small farmers and middle-class farmers, which, in my opinion, is an unhealthy state of affairs. In the first place it is alleged that the number of farmers who are integrated into our agricultural sector have already decreased from 100,000 a decade ago, to 90,000; it is also stated that 20 per cent of these 90,000 farmers are responsible for 80 per cent of the total agricultural product. It is estimated that this number of 90,000 will decrease to 40,000 by the year 2000, and according to some estimates this number may decrease to a mere 20,000, but according to these estimates these 20,000 farmers will produce three times as much, and more, than the 90,000 farmers are producing at the moment.

Another important argument which is advanced is that changing methods of farming, such as better seeds, better animals, more effective agricultural extension, better cultivation of land and the better utilizaron of fertilizers, etc., have the effect that large scale production methods are more effective. The use of ultra-modern and in some cases amphibious agricultural implements, such as ploughs with eight shares and the eight-row planter, etc., and the ability of the financially strong producer who is able to plough up the earth with between 25 and 75 tractors and turn an entire grazing area into a crop-farming area without any difficulty and in the twinkling of an eye, have, by comparison, caused the production potential of the small farmer and the middle-class farmer to fade into nothingness. It is said that the small and the middle-class farmer will not be able to compete with this.

Then there is another argument which we often hear, and that is that too much Government assistance by way of subsidies and otherwise is being provided to keep struggling farmers on their feet. It is also said that the production of the big farmer remains profitable—and this probably is so—even though the margin of profit may be lower. And last but not least, the economic world tendency which is developing in America, Germany and in other countries, is seen as an economic law which we shall not be able to resist in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that it is an economic law which we simply will have to accept. Because these facts are important and carry weight, and because the agricultural economist and the agricultural planner have to take these facts into account, I sometimes fear that also our departmental agricultural officers, our statutory boards, such as the Agricultural Credit Board, and even, with all respect, our Ministers, will allow themselves to be influenced by this tendency to such an extent that they may overlook small and middle-class farmers more and more in considering Government assistance to farmers.

No.

I am pleased to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister saying “No”. I hope and I trust that my fear is misplaced and unfounded. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my gratitude for what is being done by the Government at the moment to assist that class of farmer to build up and maintain stable farming units. We are very grateful for that. According to estimates there will be 41 million people in South Africa by the year 2000, of whom approximately seven million will be Whites. Sir, I shudder to think that according to present estimates possibly only 40,000 or even only 2,000 of those seven million Whites will be engaged in the agricultural industry in the rural areas. I believe that the carrying capacity of the agricultural land of South Africa is much higher than that and that it is possible, especially with new schemes such as the Orange River project and others, to increase that capacity, i.e. to carry more people instead of fewer as is generally estimated.

In my opinion it would be an outstanding achievement if the number of economically active farmers could be 80,000 or 90,000 or even 100,000 by the year 2000 in order to maintain and extend the inspiring rural atmosphere with all its formative values. I believe that in an agricultural country such as South Africa, with its traditional farming set-up, a decrease of the number of farmers from 90,000 to 40,000 by the year 2000 will render untold damage. It will most definitely have a detrimental effect on the socio-economic structure of our rural population, and will disrupt it completely. It will impede and retard the Government’s policy of decentralization of economic activity for promoting a more balanced population distribution. It will accelerate the rate of urbanization and it will promote the depopulation of the rural areas. All the arguments in favour of fewer farmers in the rural areas do not hold water. I am not a champion of uneconomic farming practices. I have sufficient knowledge of the adverse effects of fragmented farms and units which cannot be occupied and cultivated as they belong to so many people. This is an intolerable state of affairs, and I am grateful for the legislation to prevent the fragmentation of agricultural land which has been introduced. I am grateful for what the Government is doing and has done in order to promote the consolidation of uneconomic units. But on the other hand it is also true that the State does not, as it is sometimes accused of doing, give financial assistance only to bunglers on farms. Every application by a farmer is considered on merit. The small farmers and the middle-class farmers are not the only ones who are supported and who are responsible for the losses which the State very seldom suffers.

I read in the report of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure that during the past two years only seven persons were sold up because they could not meet their obligations—four in the Transvaal, one in the Cape Province, one in the Free State, and one in Natal. Some of them might have been big farmers. But even if the State did spend large amounts on this, it would be negligible in comparison to the enormous amounts spent by local and provincial authorities and the State in our large cities on the provision of the necessary services to those larger populations, to the concentrations of people we find, for example, on the Witwatersrand, where, according to estimates, there will be 5.5 million people by the year 2000; a concentration of 2.4 million people in Pretoria, and more than 2 million here in the Peninsula. Proportionately, we may safely spend more on keeping middle-class farmers in the rural areas to populate the rural areas and to do their share in bringing about a balanced population distribution over the country.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

But surely I have not been speaking for ten minutes!

Order! The hon. member should choose his words more carefully.

I withdraw what I have said, Sir.

I want to raise a matter here which falls under this Vote, but which concerns two Government Departments, and perhaps someone with my background will be best able to touch on this matter objectively as it concerns both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice. As a farmer I have high regard for the Department at present under discussion, and as a legal practitioner I have high regard for the Department of Justice.

I want to deal specifically with Vote 18, Deeds Offices, and I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived for deeds offices to fall under the Department of Justice henceforth. Historically it may perhaps be perfectly in order for deeds offices to have fallen under the old Department of Lands originally, and to fall under the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure after the take-over of that Department. In the old days our country used to be one in which agriculture predominated. Subdivisions and registrations were easy matters as they involved very few legal complications. In the course of time, however, our country underwent industrial development and in the field of mining there was enormous growth, and the work of deeds offices not only increased considerably in volume, but also became more complicated technically. I do not want to anticipate legislation, but I want to venture the prediction that within the next few years we shall have to introduce a system in terms of which flat-owners will have to be given transfer of their flats. This will be a complete departure from our common law and in its initial years the system will experience many growing pains. Taking all this into account, I want to ask very politely for deeds offices to fall under the Department of Justice. I am of the opinion that the deeds offices will be much more at home under the Department of Justice. If this were to be done, it would bring about a better system of liaison with the legal advisers of the Department of Justice. In addition officials of the deeds offices will have to obtain legal qualifications to an increasing extent as well as the status commensurate with such qualifications. Also for this reason it will be necessary to transfer the deeds offices to the Department of Justice. It will offer the officials of the deeds offices a more attractive career. It will enable the officials to cope more effectively with the pressure of work as well as the involved nature of the work. I, as a legal practitioner, want to place it on record, however, that our deeds offices and the system followed in the deeds offices, are of the best in the entire Western world. What I have just said here should not be regarded in any way as a reflection on our present officials and the officials of the past who introduced this excellent system of the registration of deeds, or on the Department under which the deeds offices fall at present. I just want to ask the Minister whether he will not be prepared to appoint a committee, either a committee from his own department or an interdepartmental committee, to go into this entire question and to report on the desirability of transferring deeds offices to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Marico delivered a plea for the small farmer and for the average farmer. If the hon. member is looking for support in this respect, he can undoubtedly find it on this side of the House. On the basis of the speeches made during this debate from that side of the House, it is doubtful, however, whether that hon. member will find sufficient support from that side of the House. I am of this opinion because the tenure of the speeches of hon. members on that side of the House was, if there were farmers who were falling by the wayside, that simply had to happen. According to that side of the House such farmers simply had to fall by the wayside as the principle reason for that was that they had oaid too much for their land. But the accusations we made in respect of high rates of interest and in respect of increased production costs and that prices had failed to keep up with those changes, were evidently overlooked by the opposite side of this House. A number of accusations were made against us. In the first place the accusation was made that I had allegedly said that the profitability of farming had no bearing on the price of land. Of course, I said that, but not as an isolated statement. If this statement were to be made as an isolated statement, it would undoubtedly be incorrect. Let me give the hon. members the exact wording of my reply to a question by the hon. member for Colesberg. The hon. member had asked me why land prices were increasing every day, and I replied—

Sir, if land prices increase in the rural areas, does that not happen for the very same reason land prices increase in the urban and peri-urban areas? It is the very same thing. The reason is that land is not becoming more. Land is becoming increasingly scarce and is becoming less and less. That is the reason for the increase in land prices. But the increase in land prices has absolutely nothing to do with the profitability of the agricultural industry.

Now, Sir, I am going to give a further explanation for this statement. What we on this side are objecting to is that hon. members opposite present the increasing land prices as proof of the prosperity of the industry. That is what we are objecting to. If farmers have to pay too much for land—I have indicated the reasons for this state of affairs—what is the position as far as the State itself is concerned? Is the State itself not a culprit in this respect? I want to refer to the report of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Let us examine only a few examples. The State purchased land for the Pongolapoort Dam. What did it pay for that land? For 13,000 morgen of land it paid more than R3 million, approximately R230 per morgen. During the period covered by the latest report, it purchased an additional 136 morgen at R44,700. During the period covered by the latest report, the State paid approximately R320 per morgen. Let me refer the hon. the Minister to page 16 of his report. According to the report 71,000 morgen were purchased for R10 million odd, nearly R11 million, in recent times.

What do you expect?

Exactly, Sir. Now it is said that the farmers are the ones. During the year covered by the previous report the Department of Bantu Administration and Development again spent R9 million through the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure on the purchase of land. Then hon. members maintain that the farmers are the only ones who are involved in these dealings. If there are any culprits in this respect, surely the Government is one of them. In that case the Government is setting the very same example. But now it is the United Party that is saying these things. Now I am the one who has made that statement. But listen to paragraph 67, page 14, of the report itself—

The hon. the Minister and other hon. members opposite object to the statements of the United Party, but they do not object to this paragraph in the annual report of the Minister’s own Department. The hon. member for Ladybrand in particular spoke in this vein. He asked why land prices were rising continually if things were going so badly with the agricultural industry. I hope that I have given a very clear reply to that argument. The speech of the hon. the Minister, too, was larded with similar statements. They are looking for excuses for their laxity to take steps to make the industry a profitable one. They regard this rise in land prices as a means of escaping from the difficulty in which they find themselves. But this side of the House will not allow them to use that as a means of escape.

Let me mention another example of the way in which hon. members misquote us. I want to refer to the hon. member for Ladybrand. While I am dealing with him, let me point out that he is the hon. member who said we had such a wonderful Minister of Agriculture. But that hon. member is the chairman of the Mealie Board. Can we say the same thing of him? Can we say of him that he is a wonderful chairman? I am asking this because I read in the Farmer’s Weekly of 30th April that a large number of farmers held a meeting in Klerksdorp. The report on that meeting reads as follows—

How many?

More than 5,000. The hon. member is boasting of the Minister of Agriculture, but what about himself? At that meeting a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Minister, but it was withdrawn at the last minute …

Whence the sudden confidence?

Because they wanted to have an interview with the Minister within the next few days about the “arbitrary way’’ in which mealie prices had been determined by the Mealie Board. And then the hon. member for Ladybrand and his fellow members give themselves out as being the mouthpiece of the farmers in South Africa! But what was the request of the S.A.A.U. to the hon. member for Ladybrand with regard to the price of mealies? The mealie committee suggested that the price was to be R3.80. What reasons did they advance for that? The reason they advanced was that production costs for the present crop had shown a considerable increase per bag. But the Minister and the hon. member for Ladybrand decided that the price would not be R3.80 but R3.60. And now they claim to be the people who are acting in the interests of the farmer of South Africa! But when the farmer asks for a higher price, because of his increasing production costs, he does not get it.

May I ask a question?

No, and yet the hon. member for Ladybrand boasts of his Minister of Agriculture. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Newton Park made a few statements here which probably shocked all of us. For example, he pleaded with the Minister that farmers should be paid less when land was expropriated for Government purposes. [Interjections.] The hon. member is shrewd. From time to time he makes shocking statements which he rejects on a later occasion. He must come and defend this statement of his, i.e. that the State is paying too much for land, in the interior. Also with regard to the wool industry the hon. member is sometimes inclined to make certain statements. His interest is appreciated, of course, but I do not know whether he is always so honest in his intentions. My name was mentioned several times here in debates on the wool industry. For that reason I want to avail myself of this opportunity to give a full reply to the hon. member. After he has had that reply I hope he will never again arrogate to himself the right to discuss the wool industry. [Interjections.] I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that the hon. member can be compared to a windmill. But he is operating on a dry hole and all that comes out is air. I do not hold that against him, however, because he farms with merinos at Richmond, lives somewhere in the Western Cape and represents an urban constituency situated at Port Elizabeth. Perhaps to-day I should tell the hon. member certain things of which he has no knowledge about his own industry. His industry is represented by what probably is the strongest farmers’ organization in the country to-day. Together with Australia and New Zealand it probably is the strongest farmers’ organization in the world to-day. Over the years this organization has built up a relationship with the Minister about which they are jealous. Never before has the door of any Minister of Agriculture been so open to the wool farmer as it is to-day. Never before has any Minister of Agriculture had such a receptive ear for the wool industry as is the case at present. Therefore, if I may address a warning on behalf of the wool industry to hon. members, I will warn them that the wool farmers are not prepared to stand by and see that the difficulties in which they find themselves are used for the purpose of making political capital. I want to invite the hon. member for Newton Park to attend the congresses of the N.W.G.A. from time to time so that he may get his ear on the ground for a change.

But the real reason why I am on my feet is to express my gratitude on this occasion on behalf of the wool industry for certain measures taken in the difficult times which were experienced. In my constituency numerous farmers, particularly young farmers, were kept on their farms because of the effective measures taken by the State during the past period of drought. As was said here yesterday, stock figures increased in spite of the drought. To me this is testimony of a very efficient fodder scheme.

I also feel obliged to express my gratitude for the introduction of the veld-reclamation scheme in this large area. This probably is one of the most positive steps ever taken in the interests of soil conservation. Therefore I want to express the hope that this scheme will achieve what otherwise could not have been achieved over a period of years.

The wool industry has received R1½ million for research and advertising. For this too I want to express my sincere gratitude. I do not want to anticipate the findings, but I believe that this amount will also be ploughed back in the interests of the wool farmer. Although the amount may seem small, I may assure you, Sir, that it means a great deal to many of our farmers who suffered during the recent drought.

Order! The hon. member for Mariental may not read a newspaper in the House.

I am merely consulting a report, Mr. Chairman, from which I want to quote later on.

A further amount of R38,000 appears on the Estimates for the Wool Textile Research Institute. For this gesture I want to say thank you very much. This proves to the wool farmer of South Africa that this Government is in earnest as regards research in connection with wool. To-day I want to pay tribute to the wool researchers of this country and the world. With their aid and with the development of the product, the wool industry has found its feet to-day after a serious recession. All signs indicate that we are heading for better times. The South African Wool Textile Research Institute is recognized by the world as an authority on wool. It has already made several breakthroughs. Unfortunately my time is too limited to elaborate on this in detail. Breakthroughs have been made which are enjoying world-wide recognition. This institute is also meeting a special need in Port Elizabeth where it is assisting in the training of textile technologists at the University of Port Elizabeth. These people are doing a Herculean task. We are aware of the fact that textile technologists are extremely scarce in this country. When large textile business concerns require textile technologists, they have to bring these people from overseas. Therefore I want to pay tribute to these people who in point of fact have to work overtime to help meet that need of the University of Port Elizabeth. We believe and we know that this special service they are rendering at that university is still going to serve a very useful purpose for our country over a period of years.

Mr. Chairman, when one listens to hon. members of the Opposition, it strikes one that a series of insignificant charges is levelled at the Minister and the Department of Agriculture from time to time in connection with agricultural matters. If one retains one’s perspective, it strikes one that the Government and the hon. the Minister are in very close contact with the agricultural industry and that the Government is co-operating actively with the farming community in keening the agricultural industry on a sound basis. One need only have regard to the series of measures in respect of combating the effects of droughts; the Minister’s handling of surpluses and the encouragement given in respect of production. One has in mind, for example, production loans; one has in mind subsidies on fertilizers, water conservation and agricultural technical services. Just consider the enormous amounts which are made available for stabilizing prices. When one takes all these things into account, one cannot come to any other conclusion except that the Government not only has sympathy with the farming community but is also co-operating actively in stabilizing and developing the agricultural industry in South Africa.

If the hon. member for Newton Park should address this Committee another time, I should like him to adjust his sight to some extent and to give an account of what this Government is doing for the farmers. Our entire marketing system is based on interaction between the farming community, organized agriculture, and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. For that reason it is good to know that the farming community of South Africa can always rely, at times when it is experiencing difficult circumstances either because of droughts or surpluses which have to be coped with, on the active co-operation of the Government and on assistance to the agriculturalist in South Africa. Assistance to the agricultural industry is not only assistance to a particular sector of our community, but in point of fact also a step which is taken with a view to the future and with a view to making provision for the food requirements of our nation, also with a view to the future.

On this occasion I should like to request the attention of the hon. the Minister for an industry which is limited specifically to the district of Clanwilliam, and that is the rooibos tea industry. This is an industry which has been experiencing difficult times during the past few years. In respect of this industry, which is a limited industry and which affects not thousands but only a few hundred farmers, the Government as well as the hon. the Minister have shown that they want to look after the interests of those farmers and want to help them to the best of their ability. For that reason I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for having gone to great lengths during the past year to persuade the Government to give guarantees to the Land Bank so as to assist the control board concerned to pay advances to the farmers in order to assist them in that way to keep their industry going. On behalf of the farmers I should like to thank the Government and the hon. the Minister for having done so. Sympathetic encouragement also came from the Department of Commerce, encouragement to the packers and the importers of Eastern tea to give the rooibos tea industry a chance and to assist in making it possible for the industry to compete. Here we have a young industry which is competition with a very strong and large industry which is. based on the importation of Eastern tea which is firmly established on the market. Mr. Chairman, in thanking the hon. the Minister and in expressing our appreciation for what the Government is doing and the attitude it is adopting towards these people, I should like to express the hope that the Government will keep on looking after and assisting this industry in the future as well. It has become clear in recent times that South African rooibos tea is a product of quality which deserves our encouragement, and particularly in view of the fact that this is an industry which will save us foreign exchange and in view of the fact that its competitor is an imported product, I want to express the hope that this will be regarded as an additional reason why this industry should receive encouragement. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to ask the hon. the Minister, at the request of the community concerned, to give serious consideration to accommodating this industry too as far as assistance is concerned, even if only to a moderate extent as this is a limited industry, in the same way as the wool industry has been accommodated as we have just learned from the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, with a view to research and advertising this particular product. I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will consider this in the coming year. When we look back we see that there is a whole series of various types of farming which received assistance during the past year when they found themselves in difficult circumstances, either as a result of devaluation, or as a result of natural disasters, or as a result of marketing problems, etc. Consequently I feel confident that this request I am addressing to the hon. the Minister will be regarded as a reasonable request. We want to ask the hon. the Minister in all modesty, but very firmly, to give consideration to assisting this industry so as to promote to some extent its research and advertising programme for its product.

Sir, the rooibos tea industry is faced with another specific problem. and that is that its product is not dealt with and transported on the South African Railways as an agricultural product but as an item of grocery. The rooibos tea farmers feel that it is very unfair that Eastern tea landed at Durban is transported more cheaply to the large Witwatersrand market complex than a South African product which is produced in the district of Clanwilliam.

Rooibos tea is nice.

There is no doubt about that and in addition it is healthy. Consequently I want to ask the hon. the Minister to use his influence with the Department of Railways so as to assist us to have rooibos tea, which is a South African product, transported at a reasonable agricultural tariff. I know that the hon. the Minister has strong influence with the Minister of Transport, and I want to express the hope that he will assist us in the future. Up to now we have not been making much progress with negotiations. The Railways also have their problems. But I want to ask in all seriousness that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, as the protector of the South African agricultural industry and the South African agricultural product, will use his influence to have this matter rectified for us.

As a voter in the constituency of Graaff-Reinet it really was a big disappointment to me to-day to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, for the simple reason that he as the representative of that farmers’ constituency said here to-day that his people were satisfied —“We are satisfied”; in other words, the hon. member for Walmer is satisfied and I am satisfied. He said all of us were perfectly satisfied with the assistance which had been given by this Government to the farmers in recent times. I say I am disappointed in that hon. member for the simple reason that before he was a member of this House he used to be prepared, as a wool farmer, to take up the cudgels for the interests of the agricultural industry in that part of the country. I challenge that hon. member now to deny that he said two or three years ago that the rates of interest were so high that one farmer after another was going under in that part of the country. I challenge that hon. member now to deny that he said two or three years ago, before he became a member of this House, that the assistance given by this Government always was too little or too late.

Quote me.

Those reports appeared in Die Burger as well as the Landbou-weekblad and I shall let the hon. member have those reports. But do you see the difference, Sir? Before he was a member of this House, when he still had to represent the interests of the farmers on the Wool Board, when he knew what their interests were, he made that statement, but since he has become a member of this House he is a new member who only has one speech to make and that is, “Thank the Minister”. For that reason I am saying that I, as a voter in the constituency of that hon. member, am extremely disappointed with the way in which he is looking after the interests of the farmers. [Interjections.] That hon. member has just said here that the young farmers are satisfied. I issue a further challenge to him and that is to deny that he said on that same occasion that young farmers stood no chance of achieving success at the present time—or words to that effect. But now the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet comes along here and in his second or third speech he does nothing more but to thank the Minister for everything which is being done and he says how satisfied the people are. I ask the hon. member whether he was satisfied with the action taken by this Minister when the hon. member together with the hon. member for Cradock and the Deputy Minister visited Graaff-Reinet a few weeks ago, when the farmers put questions, and when he went to see the Minister on behalf of deputations of the S.A. Wool Growers’ Association and of the Wool Board when they pleaded for a subsidy in respect of rates of interest? Is he satisfied with the reaction of this Government?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. member may make his own speech. But that member says that all his people are satisfied. Sir, they are so satisfied with him that when he wanted to become the member for Graaff-Reinet, he had to fight a nomination. That is how satisfied they are with him. [Interjections.] But the difficulty with those hon. members is this. They cannot hear very well. The hon. member did exactly the same thing which any of the hon. members had been doing up to now; they quoted our words out of context. The hon. member said that I had said the Government had paid too much to those people whose land it had purchased. I did not say that. What I said was that if the farmers were guilty of paying high land prices, what about the Government that was also paying high prices? Surely there is a world of difference. But the difficulty with hon. members opposite is that they clutch at all these straws, and the reason for that is that they cannot hear very well. However, they have an hon. member on that side of the House, namely the hon. member for Pretoria (District), who is a particularly good farmer. Hon. members on the opposite side should ask him how one should hear properly. He has a small machine which he switches on from time to time so as to know exactly what is being said. They ought to call in that hon. member, because it is a strange thing that quotations made by those hon. members from speeches made by hon. members on this side of the House, differ completely from the Hansard reports. I shall now quote my exact words—

Hon. members on the opposite side, however, said that we had said that the Advisory Council meant absolutely nothing.

When did you add that last portion.

I think it is a tremendous reflection the hon. member is casting now. Here is my speech.

I, too, made notes of your speech.

The hon. member for Yeoville may check my speech now to see whether I have made any changes to my speech.

That hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself.

This is what I had actually said. We say the Advisory Council has absolutely no power to-day and consequently, although its advice may mean a great deal, its real position in the South African agricultural industry is insignificant. We say that it should be replaced by an agricultural planning council. I want to conclude by expressing a few last ideas. We believe that, as in all economic activity, free enterprise to the welfare of all should be the mainstay of our agricultural industry. The individual producer should be free to plan his own activities, but general planning is required for rationalizing the industry. A general guiding line should be laid down to encourage a production changeover from those sectors in which chronic overproduction is creating a problem to those sectors in which there is a greater need for production. Such planning will be one of the functions of the agricultural planning council the United Party will establish. Furthermore, we say that this council will be representative of all sectors of the industry and will not be merely another branch of a Government Department, but will act as a semi-independent body. The Minister of Agriculture will also form the link between this body and Parliament. It will not only be an advisory body, but it will also have executive powers and the necessary funds will have to be voted by Parliament regularly. This is what we envisage; not this agricultural advisory council of the hon. the Minister which may not even express an opinion on the price policy. This body of ours will have to co-ordinate many of the activities, namely those of the marketing council, the control board, and, for instance, the soil conservation board. It will be responsible for the establishment of a subsidiary body which will promote exports and, in consultation with the control boards and producers’ organizations, will co-ordinate marketing. In a previous speech I pointed out that even the agricultural financing division of the Department will be a sub-division of this agricultural planning council. I think hon. members opposite are also thinking in terms of this. The hon. member for Fauresmith quoted here from the Financial Mail. They know what our agricultural policy is, but the hon. member tried to make fun of certain articles which had appeared in the Financial Mail in respect of this policy. The Financial Mail agrees that an agricultural planning council is the best body to establish in South Africa. Indeed, they suggest that it may be something which the Marais Commission will recommend. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I found it interesting to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Newton Park. He made the accusation that the present advisory council meant nothing because it had no powers. The hon. member said the planning council they would establish would be one with powers. I just want to ask the hon. member whether this planning council he proposes, will not fall under a Minister. Is the utilization of funds not going to be subject to the approval of a Minister? Will they establish this council, make funds available to it and then leave it to the council to decide on the determination of prices, the consolidation of land, the financing of farmers, etc., without its being responsible to Parliament for its actions? Is that what the hon. members are going to do?

Have you not been listening properly again?

I am asking a simple question. The hon. member said that this body should have powers, and I am asking what powers it will have. I want to re-state them to hon. members.

It will be a second broadcasting corporation.

That hon. member must hold his peace because he only knows about baboons. I want to place it on record that everything the hon. member requested, is to be found in the various bodies which have been established to serve the agricultural industry in South Africa. In the first place these boards do have powers to determine prices in terms of the Marketing Act. They can only do so, however, in consultation with the Minister. Does the hon. member want to tell me that this Parliament will establish a planning council which will have powers to determine prices without its accounting to Parliament through some person or other?

But I have stated what the link will be with the agricultural planning council.

There is no point in saying that there will be a link, that the Minister will exercise control and that that council will have powers. We have a large number of boards in South Africa. All our marketing boards have powers. They have price determination powers, registration powers and many others. Such powers may also be given to the so-called planning council. However, such powers will still be subject to the approval of somebody and that person will be the Minister who is responsible to Parliament. Or are hon. members going to establish a planning council that will not be responsible to Parliament? Of course not. In that case, surely there are no grounds for saying that the planning council to be established by hon. members opposite will be a wonderful body which will operate in a different way than that in which the present advisory council, with the present associated boards established in terms of the Marketing Act, is operating.

It cannot carry on as it is carrying on at the moment. It is impossible.

What cannot carry on as it is carrying on at the moment?

The agricultural industry will go downhill more and more.

The planning council which hon. members opposite are going to establish will only be able to undertake the same type of planning as that which is at present being undertaken by the various boards and the Agricultural Advisory Council in consultation with the Department. Surely it cannot undertake any other planning. The fact remains that if the council had undertaken any planning and such planning was accepted, it would still have to be accepted by the Minister and the Government as well. Surely this is obvious. This is the very thing that is happening at the moment, but only on a different basis. The hon. member for Newton Park wants to make the farmers believe something which he himself knows cannot happen. He wants to make the farmers believe that a council will be established, the planning of which will not be subject to the approval of a Minister. As I know this Parliament, it will not establish such a council.

What about the broadcasting corporation?

Now I want to put a question to that hon. member. He is, after all, the behind-the-scenes leader of the United Party. Is he prepared to say that Parliament should grant powers to a certain body and that that body should not be responsible to any Minister or to anybody in this House?

May I ask the hon. Minister a question?

No, I am asking the hon. member a question. Simply reply yes or no.

Why should I?

The hon. member will not do so, because he dare not. The hon. member wants to play a double game and that is why he does not want to reply. There is no other reason. Here the hon. member wants to say that he wants to protect the rights of Parliament and outside the hon. member wants to say that he has pleaded for the farmers. The present advisory council, as it is existing to-day, and all the other associated boards and councils, such as, for example, the Marketing Council and the control boards which exercise control over products, and the various committees which act in an advisory capacity to every industry, are fulfilling the same function hon. members apposite want one central advisory council to fulfil. Each one of these committees fulfils the same function as that which the hon. member would like to see being fulfilled by one central agricultural advisory council. The only difference is that these various committees are able to fulfil a wider function than one central agricultural advisory council will be able to fulfil. That is what I said. Then the hon. member accuses hon. members on this side of having twisted his words. He said the present Agricultural Advisory Council meant nothing because it did not have any powers.

Well!

If this is so, I want to place it on record that the council which the hon. member proposes will not mean anything either, because such a council will have the same shortcomings, in his opinion, on account of the fact the powers of this body will also have to be controlled by somebody else. This “somebody else” will be the Minister, whether he be a United Party Minister or a Minister of whatever party. Therefore the position remains the same. The hon. member accuses us of giving distorted versions of his standpoints. This, however, is what he is constantly doing in this House; he did so this afternoon. In the same policy statement to which he referred, he said that the United Party’s policy was one of free enterprise for every person who wanted to go in for farming. Their policy is that every person should decide for himself whether he wants to farm, whether he wants to buy land and what he wants to pay for such land. That is also our standpoint.

If one has a system of free enterprise like this, the problems which the hon. member outlined here, flow from that system. I have never said that farmers should not pay large sums for their land. I have never said that the Government pays as much for its land when it acquires land, but if the Government purchases land as it did in this case, it does not expect to make a profit from agriculture on such purchases. When the Government does something like that, it does not expect to receive a good interest from that and still be able to afford someone a living on that holding. I have said so repeatedly. If a person wants to buy land at the current prices, he is free to do so. He may buy the world; there is nothing which prevents him from doing so, but then he should not expect the price of his product to increase to the same extent as that to which the value of his land has increased, so as to enable him to recover interest from that and in addition make a living from that. This then is the very essence of the matter. Hon. members opposite maintain that if a farmer has paid too much for his land, the Government has to see to it that the price of his product is such that he can make a living from his land and in addition recover interest from his land. This is what the entire argument of that hon. member amounts to.

Will this not have the effect of decreasing prices?

This is the argument of the hon. member, and it is in this respect that we differ. My standpoint is that if a farmer wants to buy land and can pay for such land, he may buy that land, no matter how large the amount he pays for that land, but then he must not expect a control board or the Government or the taxpayer to maintain the price of the product for him at such a level that he can cover the interest on that high price as well as make a living. The standpoint of the hon. member, however, is exactly the opposite. His standpoint is that the farmer should be able to pay those high land prices, but then the Government and the taxpayers have to see to it that the price of the product is fixed at such a level that he will be able to earn a good interest from it and in addition make a good living from it. Now I want to put it to the hon. member that if a United Party Government were to come into power, something which may possibly never happen, surely it is a logical fact that land prices would always have to rise in sympathy. The hon. member admitted here this afternoon that speculators were not the only ones who invested in land and that there also was a factor taking production and income into account. If the income of the farmer always had to be increased along with land prices, surely land prices would always have to be increased more and more. That is what the hon. member is propagating.

That is not so.

But this is what the hon. member said. This is the whole argument advanced by the hon. member. He accused the Government of not seeing to it that, with the high cost structure of land and the large capital investment in land, the prices of products were such that those people could remain on the land and could make a living from that land. Surely that is the whole argument. Otherwise I do not know why we are arguing.

May I ask a question?

The hon. member may make a speech a little later.

The hon. member may as well ask his question.

Can the Minister give any indication of how much land is being purchased proportionately?

A reasonable percentage. But I want to come to the argument that in these circumstances the Government is not doing its duty to keep farmers on their farms. The Government can take certain steps to enable people to remain on the land, or to enable them to overcome their difficulties, in times of drought or when marketing problems may arise. But the Government cannot give the farmer a guarantee that he will be able to remain on the land. No Government will be able to do that. The United Party will be even less able to do so than we are, because their own voters will not allow them to do so. We cannot give them a guarantee that they will be able to remain on the land under all circumstances. But the accusation of the hon. member is that we are not trying to keep the farmers on the farms by means of assistance measures. The argument of the hon. member is that some of the farmers are allowed to leave the platteland, and that the Government should see to it that nobody left. That is his whole argument.

We do not refer to the inefficient farmers.

Very well, the hon. member says the inefficient farmers should go. He says the inefficient farmers should leave. What yardstick is the hon. member going to apply to decide whether a farmer is inefficient? Is it because of financial problems, too high investments, capital expenditure, a too extravagant way of life, or whatever? What yardstick are they going to employ to ascertain this? Often it is the farmer who is not such a good farmer, because of the fact that he …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Order! We are in Committee now. The hon. member can have another turn to speak. The Minister’s time is not limited by the time laid down for the debate, but the time of hon. members is.

The hon. member may put his question a little later.

The hon. member may put his question.

I just want to make my point first. This is what I want hon. members to reply to. Yesterday I discussed the matter of the younger farmers on the farms. The hon. member is the main speaker of the United Party as far as agricultural matters are concerned, and I thought he would reply to that. I referred to the question whether the State should see to it that young farmers would be given the opportunity to farm. Under present circumstances the tendency in the economy is for businesses to grow, for well-moneyed people to expand, and there is the fact that land is not becoming more plentiful, but scarcer. Therefore, if one wants to enable younger farmers, who do not have capital, to farm, one must get away from the idea expressed here by the hon. member, i.e. the idea of free enterprise and every man being able to decide where he wants to buy land. This is only logical; because if one does not deprive a man of his right of free enterprise, the young farmer will obviously never find himself in a position to be able to compete against the man who has the capital to buy the land, for whatever purpose he may buy such land. For that reason I put this question prominently to hon. members yesterday. If it is their sincere wish that more farmers should remain on the platteland, it means that, apart from the capital investment in respect of the land, at the higher prices, or the portion of that which he himself has to contribute, and the production possibilities of the farm, he would also have to take up a 100 per cent loan for his working capital. We ourselves know that in that case he will never be able to become independent. If one wants the younger farmers to remain on the farms, one has to do one of two things. One has to force down land prices to a level which is within the production possibilities, the income, of that land; otherwise he will not be able to make a living on that land. Or one has to devise a system by which one can enable the younger farmer to farm on land which he does not own. Yesterday I put the question very prominently to hon. members. If they are able to suggest another method to me of enabling a man to farm without capital, I shall be prepared to listen to that. Yesterday I asked whether they were in favour of, in the first place, a restriction being placed on the extent of the land a farmer may own. Are they in favour of imposing a production restriction so as to prevent a farmer from producing more than a certain quantity of a product? The hon. member is shaking his head. I assumed that he would say no.

It is a ridiculous question in any case.

No, but I gave the two alternatives. I repeat my challenge to the hon. member. If he can find any other method on a basis of free enterprise apart from the two I mentioned, he should suggest them. He has every right to do so and he has all the time he needs at his disposal, 13 hours, in which to mention them. [Interjections.] Very well, the hon. member rejects that alternative. The second method of assisting a young farmer to farm, is if the State owns the land and is prepared to lease that land to the young farmer on a long-term basis at the possible income value of that land. This is the only other way. The State has to fulfil this function, not the young farmer’s father or his grandfather. Now I once again put the question very prominently to the hon. member: Is the United Party prepared to say that State-owned land, which may still be available in the future, should be leased on a long-term basis so that the State may enable the young farmers to farm on that land without their having to take a large capital burden on themselves while it is not justified economically to buy the land on the free market? This is the only other way I can see. I am prepared to be taught by the hon. member. If he can see another possibility, I am prepared to listen to him. The hon. member should not make us talk politics only and should not turn every point into politics. The hon. member said that he had the interests of the agricultural industry in South Africa at heart. He was concerned about the young farmers. He was concerned about the depopulation of the rural areas. So am I! But if one is concerned, one must find a method by which those farmer's can be enabled to remain on their farms. I have just put two possibilities to the hon. member. If he has any other possibility in mind, he may say what that is. I shall listen to him. But the hon. member should at least also be prepared to say what his opinion is of the two possibilities I put to him He must be prepared to say what his standpoint is in that regard. If he is not prepared to do so and if he cannot suggest any other possibility, there is no point in this whole argument and in this two-day-old debate.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased if in this debate on agriculture we …

You argue well, but quite unrealistically.

But of course! That is how the hon. member argues all the time. That is my very argument. I argue in response to the requests and accusations of hon. members opposite. Because their accusations and requests are unrealistic, my arguments, too, must be unrealistic.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must stop interrupting now. He can have another turn after the Minister.

The hon. member will have an opportunity to state their standpoint in regard to this matter in full, everything they suggest in the place of what I am suggesting. He may advance arguments to what I have said. Let us leave aside politicking and stealing a march on someone as far as the agricultural industry is concerned. We have a debate of 13 hours. To tell the honest truth, Sir, judging from the major part of the debate to which I have listened, one actually ought to feel ashamed to have to listen to a debate like this on agriculture in Parliament. I really want to repeat this. Let us have constructive arguments for a change with regard to the problems which the hon. member sees, if he is in earnest about our finding solutions to those problems. Let us view the matter objectively. I have stated my case and my solution. Let us see what the opposite side of this House can suggest. Then we will be achieving something for the agricultural industry. We shall not be able to do that with this type of witch-hunting and march-stealing.

The hon. member for Newton Park mentioned in his speech that he was disappointed with the speech of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. I want to tell him that not only were I myself and the members of the agricultural group on this side of the House disappointed with his efforts in this agricultural debate, but I believe that the entire agricultural community in South Africa to-day was disappointed with the efforts which the United Party make in this agricultural debate of 1969. The hon. member referred to my colleague, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, and I want to ask him: If he is then so ready to criticize what the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said, where was he at the N.W.G.A. congress? Where was he on the Wool Board? This hon. member is vice-president of the Cape Province N.W.G.A. and he is a member of the Wool Board. The hon. member for Newton Park is not seen there and nothing is heard from him. I want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park to tell us clearly when and where the N.W.G.A. or the Wool Board asked the Minister for a wool subsidy. Let the hon. member reply to this: When and where was the Minister asked for this? I also want to tell the hon. member that when the wool industry makes representations to the hon. the Minister it is done with a full sense of responsibility by a group of people who are supporting the wool industry in South Africa and extending it in the interests of the country. But I want to go further. I do not think that any industry in South Africa has ever been so disgraced as this agricultural industry has been in this debate in the last few days. I merely want to quote a few statements which hon. members of the Opposition made in this debate.

Just state them clearly.

I shall state them clearly.

Did you listen attentively?

Yes. The hon. member for Newton Park said, inter alia, “The people of South Africa are not interested in investing money in agriculture”. Those were his words. The hon. member for Gardens claimed that uneconomic units, and the problems of the farmer, date back to 1948. The hon. member for King William’s Town said that the young people no longer wanted to go farming, and he went further and made a statement which hurt me very much, i.e. that the Minister must wait until the animals in South Africa were dying before he intervened in order to give assistance.

No, he did not say “must” wait.

The hon. member for Mooi River said that only large companies were prepared to purchase agricultural land in South Africa. Sir, we are discussing an industry which has problems, and if people are prepared to make the kind of statements which we have heard in the past few days in this House, it is no encouragement for the people in that industry. I concede that there are problems in the agricultural industry, but then we must orientate ourselves to stand together in order to help and to build up this industry to a standard where the farmer can once more take up a place of honour and have a firm foothold in the industry in which he finds himself. Sir, I do not want to claim that the United Party cannot make a contribution. I believe that they are not all stupid, and therefore I want to appeal to the United Party to use their agricultural knowledge in the service of agriculture and in the service of the fanner so that the farmers may benefit not only from their agricultural knowledge but also from what the hon. the Minister and his Department are doing and want to do for agriculture. To-day I should also like to make an appeal from this House to the farmers of South Africa, and especially the maize farmers. I want to ask that the farmers of South Africa bury the hatchet. The farmers to-day cannot afford to blow hot and cold. Therefore I want to ask from this House to-day that the farmers should stand together. There is so much knowledge and money which can be used collectively for the advancement of the farmer’s welfare, and therefore I want to ask farmers not to quarrel with one another, but let us look to the industry and to the welfare of the farmers in South Africa. Therefore I ask the farmers to stand together. The agricultural industry needs it; South Africa needs it.

Then I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to page 101 of the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, where a table appears in connection with the results recorded by the Bethlehem-Reitz study groups during the 1966-’67 production year. There we find that 26.6 per cent of the farmer’s expenditure went on vehicles and engines, tractor costs and implement costs. But I also see that an announcement appeared in the magazine Tegniek about a South African company which is prepared to hire out implements to farmers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to support and to encourage these companies who are prepared to hire out implements to the farmers? This is one of the factors which forces up the farmer’s expenditure tremendously, and therefore I want to ask whether it is not possible for farmers to make more and more use in future of companies who are prepared to hire out implements to them. This system will also be a great asset to the farmer as far as income tax is concerned. In addition I want to ask whether it would not be possible for the Minister in future to assist, encourage and subsidize companies who are prepared to cultivate land in the agronomy regions on a contract basis. It would save the farmers a tremendous amount in capital expenditure on implements, tractors and parts. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to assist these companies, if possible, because he can thereby also assist the farmers. Sir, in conclusion just this: The hon. the Minister is sympathetic to agriculture and to the young farmer. I merely want to ask him not to withdraw his sympathy for agriculture and for the young farmer. We appreciate it, we make use of it and we shall have need of it in the future.

I in no way envy the United Party members the task which has been placed on their shoulders, i.e. the task of criticizing the agricultural policy of this Government; I do not envy them because once, altogether innocently, I landed up in the position of having to try to defend the agricultural policy of the United Party. This is how it happened, Mr. Chairman: I landed up at a debating evening where the agricultural policies of the National Party and of the United Party had to be discussed, and, against my wishes, I was assigned the task of defending the policy of the United Party. After I had paged through their policy leaflet and could find no policy point about which I could speak, my glance fell upon the front page and I saw their emblem, i.e. the orange tree. I subsequently decided to apeak about the orange tree, and told the people that the orange tree, their emblem, could yield a delicious fruit. Sir, this was during the years when that party was in power. It was when I was at boarding school and it was a debate amongst our boarding school boys. My opponent them jumped up, held up a slice of rye bread and said to me: “Rooie, have you forgotten this morning when we had to eat this bread? What is more, have you forgotten that we did not even have any butter to spread on it? Also, have you forgotten that when we wanted to wash it down with the coffee, we did not even have sugar to put in the coffee?” Mr. Chairman, that is what the position was in the days of the United Party. That is why I say that I do not envy them the task of criticizing the agricultural policy of this Government.

I should like to leave them with that statement and look ahead to better things. Hon. members of the Opposition tried to suggest here that the Government did not come to the assistance of the farmers when they were in difficulties. With your permission, Sir, I want to quote a few figures. In the past year, 1968-’69, which was a difficult year in the agricultural industry, one department alone, i.e. the Agricultural Credit Board, did the following: The Agricultural Credit Board helped 423 farmers with the consolidation of their debts to the full amount of R6,783,992. If one were to calculate the average, it would give one R16,000 per farmer. I think it is a desirable amount for any farmer, who is in difficulties, to receive in order to get out of his difficulties. Secondly, there is the purchase of land. 430 farmers applied for assistance in the purchase of land and the amount of R10,073,825, or an average of R23,427 per farmer, was granted to them. Take water works. When our country was experiencing a drought the Government assisted 320 farmers in respect of their water works, at an amount of R788.833, or an average of R2,150 per farmer. So I could go on, and as far as this is concerned, I want to mention in conclusion that in connection with the maintenance of livestock the Agricultural Credit Board granted 4,366 applications to the tune of R1,891,564. This is what is being done by a Government in sympathy with the farmer and the worker of South Africa.

I should like to mention a problem to the hon. the Minister which the farmers in my own area are experiencing. These are the fresh milk farmers engaged in the milk industry within the controlled milk area. This is in the Witwatersrand, Pretoria and Vereeniging vicinity. Those fresh milk farmers are faced with a great milk surplus every summer. For the purpose of my argument here, I want to divide the milk farmers into two groups. The one is the farmer farming within the controlled milk area. These are the farmers near the great cities. These are also the farmers who keep up the milk industry in the difficult winter months. These are the intensive milk farmers, who make a livelihood exclusively from the production of milk. This is also the farmer whose milk production is held constant throughout the year, winter and summer. Then we have the other type of milk farmer. This is the farmer who is further away from the cities, outside the controlled areas. These are people who mostly apply mixed farming. They are not exclusively dependent upon the milk industry. In the winter they produce very little milk, but in the summer, when conditions are favourable, they produce a lot of milk and great quantities of surplus milk. During the winter months these outside farmers send perhaps 5 per cent or 10 per cent of their milk production to the controlled area in order to keep a door open for themselves into the controlled area when they have great surpluses during the summer. In summer when they can produce milk with little effort and expense, they send the surplus milk to the controlled area, thereby causing a great Surplus problem which forces down the price of milk. The intensive milk farmer, who makes his living exclusively from milk production, suffers because the prices decrease.

What is the solution to that problem?

The solution to that problem lies in the hands of our competent Minister of Agriculture. He can perhaps give thought to production control, or perhaps to other methods as well. A second reason which I see as being responsible for the over-production of milk in the summer is the marketing of milk in the locations. There are large locations situated near our cities and the milk consumption in the locations can be very high. But it is not what it should be because not only is it a tradition among the Bantu to drink sour milk, it is also their staple foodstuff, like kaffir beer and mealie porridge. Unfortunately the pasteurized milk which is marketed in our locations cannot become sour, and the Bantu prefer to have 60 per cent of their milk in the form of sour milk. I do not now want to become involved in an argument with medical men. I know that the risk of the spreading of disease with unpasteurized milk is great, but I want to say that under the supervision of the Milk Board and the local authorities where milk is marketed in the location, attention can be given to limiting the risk to a minimum, so that the hundreds and thousands of Bantu in the locations will once more receive their sour milk, so that a service may be rendered to them and so that they may once more be given ‘their staple foodstuff and so that coupled with that the surplus problems of the farmer will also decrease.

It is a privilege for me to place this problem of my local milk farmers in the hands of the competent hon. Minister of Agriculture. It is even more agreeable for me to realize that it will not be my task to find a solution to this difficult problem.

I listened very carefully to what the hon. the Minister had to say when he spoke last, and I wish to ask him certain questions. Let me now deal with what the Minister said, as I understood it. He says if a farmer buys land and he pays such a price that the price he gets for his product thereafter is uneconomic, he cannot ask the Government to protect him and to protect that price which he must have to make his farming economic; the farmer is quite wrong in having paid that price for the land. That is the Minister’s argument. That was the whole basis of it. He says: I am not going to defend the farmer who pays a high price for land and then comes along to ask me to defend the price he is getting for his product. In other words, the Minister works it backwards and says: This is the price fox the product and if the farmer cannot get land on which to farm so as to produce products at the economic price I am giving him, then he must not pay that price fox the land.

I thought you were a grown-up man.

Yes, I am more grown-up than the Minister, because more cockeyed economics I have never heard from a Minister in this House. The Minister has taken the farming economics and he has stood them on their head and he says: I am going to look at the feet because that is the head of this economic proposition. The Minister has stood the whole of the economic basis of farming right on its head.

But I never said what you are sying now.

Then words have no meaning. I have condensed it because the Minister had endless time at his disposal to go on wandering on and on and my time is limited.

Carry on.

I will carry on. I do not require your consent to carry on. The position then is that we have pleaded to get the young farmer on the land and to keep him there, and whether he is a young farmer, a new farmer or an old farmer, he requires land on which to farm. Now, what are the economics of farming to-day? The price of land has gone up and the question I am going to ask the Minister is this. Where in South Africa can a farmer, young, old or new, buy land at a price which will give him an economic return on his investment without his having to go and borrow it; in other words, without having to live on borrowed money?

That is exactly what I said.

The difference between us is this: There sits the Minister. I am not the Minister. What is he doing about it? The answer is that he is doing nothing. He is merely defending a bad policy which he has adopted and which is not producing food for South Africa.

I made two proposals to you. If you can make another one, I am prepared to listen to it.

This is exactly the attitude of a bankrupt Nationalist Government and a bankrupt Nationalist Minister. They sit there as a Government and they turn round to the Opposition and say: Will you now find us the answers and the solutions to the problems we have created, because we could not run the economy of this country properly. And having failed to find the answers to those problems, they tell us to find them. Yes, put us in those benches and we will find the answers. Make no mistake about that.

I made two proposals and I want you to criticize them.

I just made this point in regard to your main proposal. If the Minister denies it, he must tell me where I am wrong when I say that he said that the farmer should not buy land at a price which is so high that he cannot economically farm with the prices of products as they are to-day. Did he not say that?

Not what the price is to-day, but what he can get for his product.

What is the difference Mr. Chairman? The Minister is now splitting hairs. What is the difference between the price he can get and the price he now gets or the price he can get next week?

There is quite a big difference. A good price may be 100 cents to-day and 50 cents tomorrow.

And does the farmer know that when he buys the land? How is he going to buy land and make of it an economic proposition to sell wool in two years time? How does he find out? The answer is that the whole thing is in the hands of the Minister, and the Minister is not coping with it. He is turning agricultural economics right upside down. The whole thing is upside down, and it is upside down because he is dealing with the price of land. That is not where the problem lies. What is the Minister going to do about his own proposal to find a solution for this? What is he doing? He has no solution. Let us look at the price of land. I shall tell you, Mr. Chairman, what the position is. There is nowhere in South Africa where a farmer can buy land at a price which is going to make farming economical at the present time without Government help—nowhere in South Africa, and the Minister knows it.

That is not the point.

Oh no. It is the very point the Minister was making—that the farmers were paying too much for their land. Mr. Chairman, if a farmer buys land at all at the present time he has to pay too high a price on the basis the Minister has set for it. And if a farmer does not buy land, what then is the economics? What is the economics of the man who has got a farm, whose grandfather bought it? Do you think a farmer to-day has to show in his balance sheet land at the price his grandfather paid for it? Is that his economics? Or does he have to show it at the current price of land? And what is the current price of land? That is high because basically to-day it is an investment …

It is exactly what I said.

It is an investment because the investor thinks his money will be safe if he puts it in land. But then the Government through another branch of its administration buys land for the Bantu at enormously expanded values—all over the country vast prices are being paid.

I know.

The Minister says he knows. Well, he is a party to it; so he ought to know. As a matter of fact, it is one of the few things he does know. The price has expanded all over the country. Then there are new growth points, as they are called; new irrigation schemes. Everyone of these is sending up the price of land. The price of land is rising right throughout South Africa but the farmer has got to continue to farm. That is the point. You cannot simply say that the price of land is rising and the farmers have to get out because the price of land is too high to permit of economic production.

He did not say that.

I am not concerned with the precise words the Minister used. His Hansard is there and we shall deal with it in due course. But the meaning of what the Minister said is perfectly clear. What is more, the Minister does not deny it. He does not deny the fact that to-day you have to buy land at a price which will allow you to farm and sell your products economically, without coming to the Government for protection. That is what the Minister said, and that is what he meant. It is that which I am contesting, because there is no such land. It applies neither to land available nor to the land he has to-day and which he owns because he inherited it from his grandfather. The value of that land to-day does not permit of farming under those conditions in order for him to get an economic living out of that land on the basis of the prices he gets at the present time. I am not concerned with what may happen in two years’ time when the price of wool may go up. We may have to face another big drought by then and the price of wool may be down. And what then? Where does the farmer stand? This is precisely what we have been saying all along. We have said all along that the Government does not want to realize that droughts are part of the farming economy in South Africa; it is part of the system; it is part of what you have to take into consideration when you want to become a farmer, i.e. that continually, year after year, you are going to have droughts, in the same way as from time to time you may have floods. But what we want from the Government is a long-term plan, as my leader has referred to here repeatedly. And we want planned finance, long-term as well as short-term. We want to have that clear-cut so that the farmer can be in a position when he comes to the authorities for money to know under which conditions he will be granted a loan. If, then, he cannot comply with those conditions, he cannot get the loan. But this is not clear in respect of any department at the present time. The hon. the Minister was the gentleman who about three years ago said that all farmers should have their bonds with the Land Bank. I see the Minister admits it. But what happened as soon as we went along to try to get a bond with the Land Bank? We were told there was no money. Thereafter another little bit was voted and then, once again, there was no money. So, what is the use of the Minister coming along here telling us not to borrow from all over the place, from commercial banks, from private bondholders, and others, but that we should borrow our money all from one source, from the Government, from the Land Bank and then in the next breath …

Did the Minister say so?

Yes, he said so and he has just admitted it. [Interjections.] Yes, he said so. The Deputy Minister now seems surprised.

Were you referring to me?

Of course, I am referring to you.

You said “Yes” just now.

Yes, he said “Yes” just now. What is wrong with the hon. Minister? Does he not know his own mind? When I put the question to him just now he said “yes”. He did not only nod his head. Nodding his head may mean he is asleep. He said “yes” by word of mouth as well. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, this is a lot of arrant nonsense. The Minister knows and the Government knows that the price of land in South Africa has gone up to a level where, if you are going to carry on farming economically, the produce of the farmer has got to be protected. The farmer has to be financially protected as well, and long-term and short-term financing and a long-term agricultural plan are the only way by which we are going to keep our sons on the farms as new farmers or allow our sons to replace their fathers when they go. Because the old men die eventually even in the farming community, and younger farmers have to take over. But they have to do that on an economic basis. I want to say here categorically that with this policy of the Government the Minister is making a mockery of his words in saying that he is trying to keep farmers on the land. He is obsessed with the idea, the idea which several members have referred to, that if there are fewer farmers they will make bigger profits and produce just as much food. He is obsessed with that idea. That is basic to the thinking of the Government. but the day we are going to get more droughts, we shall be short of food. The Government thinks it is due to its efforts that we have a lot of milk and butter, of cheese, and so forth. But that has nothing to do with the Government—it is due entirely to the heavens, nothing more nor less. And the day the heavens do not give us any more rain and we find ourselves in the midst of a big drought produce will be short once more. And the Minister and his policy are completely to be blamed for that.

The hon. member for South Coast claimed that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development had paid, on behalf of the Trust, unprecedented and unheard of prices for land, prices bearing no relation to the value of land. I do not want to go into that now; the hon. member will have ample opportunity to motivate his statement when the Vote in question comes up for discussion, and then I should very much like to exchange ideas with the hon. member on that matter. He accused the Minister of Agriculture of having had a share in the purchase of this land and in the unheard of prices allegedly paid for it. In fact, the hon. member suggested that that was the only thing about which the Minister knew anything. Sir, you will probably rule me out of order if I were now to elaborate any further on this question of high land prices for the Bantu Trust. But, as I have already said, I should like to discuss this question with the hon. member for South Coast later on.

Let us take a look at some of the other things the hon. member said here. He said that the farmer of to-day who inherited his land from his ancestors, should not, in calculating the return on his farming enterprise, take into account the price paid by his ancestors for that land. The hon. member pursued that point by saying that the purchase of land was an investment to-day. Now I want to ask him this: He says that the price of land is an investment. If I wish to invest my money today, am I going to invest it at a place where I am assured of a fixed interest rate, at some bank or company for instance, or do I invest in my farm because I think that I shall earn a high interest rate by doing so?

Now, tell us.

Sir, I invest in the agricultural industry because I think I shall get a high rate of interest out of it.

Do you get it?

I do. But I do not know whether the hon. member will get it. But let us leave my personal affairs out of this. Up to the present it has not been necessary for me to go to the Land Bank or to a farmers’ assistance board, although I have already paid high prices for land. But that is not relevant. I do not wish to create the impression that I am making a parade of my personal affairs. I have never questioned the hon. member about his personal affairs.

I did not ask a personal question. I was not being personal.

Who is making this speech, you or I? [Interjections.] Nor do I intend to apologize to that hon. member. I do not intend to allow him to put me off my stroke either. But any farmer who buys land and buys it as an investment, as the hon. member for South Coast said, must have calculated that he would get more interest on his capital than he would have if he had invested money at some bank or institution.

I did not say that the farmer bought the land for that purpose. I said that it was an investment.

There we have it once again. It is still an investment. What is an investment? It is an investment when one invests one’s capital in order that one may live on the interest derived from such an investment. Surely, that is what one makes investments for. Surely, one does not buy land because one is too incompetent to do anything else. If one is too incompetent to do anything else, one should not even go in for farming either; in that case one does not even belong on a farm. After all, one invests one’s money in land because one thinks that by doing so one will obtain a bigger return on one’s capital than one would have if one had invested one’s capital somewhere else. What is the hon. member’s point of departure? The hon. member takes the view that, if I had made an investment and my calculations were at fault, I would not be to blame. No, good gracious, then one can wash one’s hands of the whole affair. Then it has to be passed on to the State and to the hon. the Minister. Then he would be responsible for ensuring that one obtains a loan from the Land Bank. If one cannot raise sufficient credit at the Land Bank, if one is no longer 80 per cent credit-worthy, then the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has to help one with the full 100 per cent of one’s application. No, if we are going to found our agricultural industry on that basis, I do not foresee any future for the agricultural industry in South Africa. In that case the only way I can see open to the farmer in South Africa is, as the hon. member for Newton Park once again propagated, the peasant system which obtains in other countries; in other words, where the farmer no longer displays any initiative, where the farmer is no longer an investor, but where the farmer is a person who finds himself on the farm to render service there because he does not want to work anywhere else, because he does not want to work on the Railways, for instance, or because he does not want to take up any other employment in industry. They are in actual fact nothing but tenant farmers. I can appreciate the fact that we have to do with a risk factor; that we have precarious climatic conditions. There are, in addition, people who are struggling financially and who have had to borrow money at 5 or 6 per cent. We know that in a developing country such as South Africa, where investments can draw more interest to-day, the person who used to be prepared to grant people loans at 5 per cent interest, possibly wants 8 or 9 per cent interest on such loans at present. We are aware of that. We are also aware that circumstances may arise where market prices may collapse and that people will then need help. That is what the Land Bank is for. That is why there is a Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. However, those organizations have not been established to settle a person in the rural areas merely to be able to say that they have now settled him there.

My time is very limited, but I want to say a few more things in passing, because it is not every day that I have the opportunity of saying a few things about agriculture. The hon. member referred here to people who were paying too much for land and subsequently had to be helped by the State. Those hon. members over there include no less a person than the hon. member for East London (City). I remember very well that in the year 1953, when I also made a lot of money and got 120 pennies and even more for my wool, Mr. Stephen le Roux, a predecessor of the present Minister of Agriculture, sounded a warning and told farmers that they should not buy land on the basis of these high wool prices. He said that it was dangerous. I am sure that the present Minister of Agriculture would sound that very same warning. I would do so, too. But what did the hon. member for East London (City) do when he was chairman of the Wool Board? Does the hon. member for South Coast still remember? Can he remember that the hon. member for East London (City) said at the time that the then hon. Minister had talked through his hat and that there was no reason why wool prices would fall? He said that in future wool prices would remain the same since there was every indication that the world consumption of wool would increase. At that time he was not merely the U.P. member for East London (City). No, he was the chairman of the Wool Board. He was the person who said at the time that farmers should go on buying land and that this basis of high prices would be maintained. These are the people who are in difficulties now; that is why the hon. member is getting hot under the collar this afternoon. He became angry and said that the hon. the Minister was distorting matters. No, if there has ever been a back-to-front policy, then it is this idea of believing that one can base the agriculture industry on the price a person is satisfied to pay with as much credit as he can obtain, and that the Government then has to accept responsibility for it. [Interjections.] Please, I do not want the hon. member for Newton Park to make interjections now. If I were to have as a distorted idea of agriculture as he has, I would definitely not speak about it. The hon. member can rather speak again later on, and if the Chair affords me an opportunity, I shall reply to his question, To rely on the price wool fetches on the market, which may be 120 pennies for instance, or to rely on an exceptionally good year in which people harvest between 40 and 60 bags of maize per morgen as against the normal crop of 15 to 20 bags, or to rely on a very good wheat year in which people have exceptional crops, and then to purchase land on that basis, is not logical. If under those circumstances one does not make a success of one’s farming enterprise and then expects State aid to be adjusted accordingly, i.e. if one expects the maize or the wheat price to be adjusted to those circumstances, even if it is entirely beyond the reach of the consumer, or if one expects to be subsidized so that the consumer may not have to pay such high prices, then it is not logical either. It is only with U.P. logic that one can argue that way. We cannot return the Opposition to the Government benches, because with such logic they will never be able to govern the country.

Mr. Chairman, it has been very interesting to have sat here from 1966, and each year to have listened to the agricultural debates which fall under the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. It has been even more interesting to have listened to the Opposition’s arguments from year to year. If one has listened to their arguments one does not find it strange that they have landed themselves in their present position. After the hon. the Minister, and also the Deputy Minister, quoted from the Opposition’s then agricultural policy, one would swear that the agricultural seotor of South Africa had stood still in this rapidly developing South Africa, and that the other complexes were extended while agriculture declined. One would swear that agriculture had not kept pace with the rapid development; that the people had not built up their farms and extended them and that their standard of living had not increased as systematically as those of other sectors. We are glad of that rapid development of the other sectors. It is, of course, every person’s right to be ridiculous. It is equally the hon. Opposition’s right to conduct ridiculous arguments. We also have a few United Party members in South-West Africa. They also had their own agricultural policy during the years when they ruled there. If one compares that policy with the policy of these United Party members one sees that the agricultural policies are the same. The United Party members there had a very short agricultural policy. Their policy was: Here people, there is a world for you. Here world, there is a person for you. Having listened through the years, it would appear to me as if these United Party members are still conducting that same policy. This is about all one can say about their policy.

I should like to speak about the first settlement scheme in South-West Africa. The South-West Africa Administration began an extensive scheme in 1960. On completion it will have cost more than R12 million. It is the first scheme of its kind in South-West Africa. That scheme has also brought along its problems. There are various reasons for those problems. The fact that it is a new scheme has contributed to the problems. There was also a lack of knowledge about irrigation schemes. It was also something new for the Department. The name of this scheme is the Hardap scheme. A Hardap committee was appointed and the Minister decided that that committee would be retained to assist in the combating of the problems which the settlers are experiencing there. I am also glad that the present Farmers’ Assistance Board will also remain in operation and that the present director has also been instructed by the hon. the Minister to act on his behalf. The scheme which will be known as the Hardap scheme consists of 98 small-holdings of plus/minus 25 hectares each. Only 70 of these small-holdings will provisionally be cultivated while the remainder will be kept back. Then there is also an experimental farm of about 100 hectares. This experimental farm does a great deal of good work with experiments, etc. At present 28 of these small-holdings are already in production but they also have their problems. Their greatest problem is that the ground becomes brackish because there are not sufficient drainage facilities. Before the takeover by the Government, the South-West Africa Administration had also put a considerable scheme into operation at very high cost. This scheme will bring about the drainage of the land. We trust and we know that the hon. the Minister will be very sympathetically disposed towards the Hardap scheme, of which we are very proud because it is the first of its kind. We trust that the Government will devote as much attention to this scheme as was given to it under the South-West Africa Administration, because these people are faced with many problems. The problem is that some of these small-holdings are of a better quality than others; this is proved by analysis. These people who have the poorer small-holdings with the smaller production potential will need guidance and assistance from time to time. We believe that the Republic’s Department, which is very much better equipped than the South-West Africa Administration, will be able to help these people to solve their problems. As I have said, 28 small-holdings are already in use. Between the 10th and the 12th of June a further 15 of the remaining small-holdings will be allotted. The remainder will be allotted as soon as they are ready. We hope that the Department will make this scheme, which is at the same time a very great tourist attraction, the great success which the South-West Africa Administration meant it to become when establishing it.

Mr. Chairman, I think I shall rather leave the interesting subject discussed by the hon. member who has just sat down to other hon. members. I want to come back to a subject which I discussed in the House last night. However, before doing so, I want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Heidelberg who said that there was a time, as he put it, “onder ’n Sapregering” when he and his family and many others had no butter to put on their bread and had no sugar to put in their coffee. I want to ask him whether he thinks that there are not people who still live in that condition in South Africa to-day after 21 years of a Nationalist Party regime? I should like to go even further and say that there are possibly, and I am certain that there are, people in this country who have not got bread on which to spread butter. There are people who have not got coffee in which to put sugar. All this after 21 years of Nationalist Government!

I want to come back to the question which I raised yesterday in this House and that is the question of egg production and the levy which is paid on eggs which are produced. As I have said, I believe that no levy is paid on 54 per cent of the eggs produced in South Africa. This levy is not paid because of the system of levy collection. At the moment the levy amounts to 3 cents per dozen, and is collected at the point of supply to the consumer, in other words, from the retailer or from the egg depot. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe in Durban alone between 1,500 and 2,000 cases of 30 dozen eggs each, for which no levy is paid, are being sold each week. We have the problem of the shortage of statistics in the poultry industry. Returns are being submitted by producers but unfortunately the reports which come out quarterly are not adequate. Therefore, most of the figures I want to give are estimates. However, these estimates are worked out in conjuction with the Natal Commercial Poultry Producers Association. It is estimated that there are 10,000 outlets and 24,000 egg producers in South Africa, but only 128 hatcheries. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider a suggestion which was made to him by the Natal Commercial Poultry Producers Association that the levy should be raised at the hatchery on the pullets, which will make it easier for him to collect the levy and also make it cheaper for him to collect the levy. By doing this, it is believed that the expenses which are involved in collecting the levy could be halved.

I feel that some measure of control should be established to relate the production of eggs to demand. I want to suggest that this is absolutely necessary. It is necessary because the principle of supply and demand cannot be allowed free rein any longer. Between April and August there are seasonal shortages, and it is important that during the summer a surplus of between 10 and 15 per cent should be produced. At the moment it is estimated that the surplus which is being produced during the summer season is in the region of 35 per cent and not 10 to 15 per cent. The egg industry has become very profitable and that is why we find the surpluses which were mentioned yesterday. The hon. the Minister mentioned that there are millions of cases of surplus eggs which cannot be disposed of, because egg production throughout the world has increased. In Natal the Natal Commercial Poultry Producers Association has voluntarily curtailed the expansion of the industry and kept it down within the limits of the normal demand in Natal. This industry is to-day being faced with a threat from a company, the Tongaat Sugar Company, which is part of an industry which last year came to the Government and asked for a loan of R10 million to put this Industry on its feet. But we have the position that at present a company which is directly involved in this industry is to spend R2 million on crashing into this profitable egg industry; an industry which has been controlled by its own association in Natal and which has done a wonderful job. The estimated egg production from the Tongaat Sugar Estates is in the region of 20 per cent of the present supply in Natal where there is already an over-production of eggs, although not markedly. Here we are facing the position where one company is coming in with a potential 20 per cent overproduction. It has been suggested that this company will supply eggs at a lower price to the consumers. But we want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is not going to be the outcome. There are other producers in Natal, about five or six of them, who are big enough to withstand the challenge and competition from such an organization. The effect of allowing this company into the egg industry in Natal will be the following. The small man, the backbone of the industry in Natal to-day, the one who has between 6,000 and 8,000 producing birds, is going to be squeezed out because he will not be able to compete with the large organizations. The industry will be left in the hands of five or six bodies. I maintain that this can only lead to monopolistic conditions.

What do you propose that I do to prevent them from coming in?

I have suggested, and the Natal Commercial Poultry Producers Association agrees with me, that a case can be made out to control production in this particular sphere. The hon. member for Heidelberg suggested this in respect of dairy products. I agree with him. My personal view is that this should be done in certain spheres. It cannot be applied to agriculture in general. I agree with the hon. the Minister on this point. I think a case can be made out that control of production of eggs can be applied. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to apply his mind to this particular problem of this gate-crashing by the Tongaat Sugar Company into the egg industry in Natal. We cannot keep them out, I agree with the hon. the Minister. We cannot tell a farmer what he can produce on his farm, but I would suggest that if they were phased in at the rate of 5 per cent per annum they could perhaps be absorbed. The hon. the Minister knows that in a matter of six months or nine months at the outside, they can be in full production. This will mean an additional amount of 2,000 cases of eggs per week for the Natal market alone. This can upset the whole poultry industry, not only in Natal, but throughout the whole country. I commend this suggestion to the hon. the Minister that, through the powers at his disposal, he should persuade them to phase in and not to come in with their whole production at one time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) spoke about a matter to which I do not feel myself qualified to reply. However, at the beginning of his speech he remarked about the poor people, which we still have to-day, some of whom do not have bread to eat. This is so. Poverty and poor people there will unfortunately be. There are two things, which we still have in this country, which I regret, i.e. poverty and the United Party members. However, I may give the hon. member the assurance that in the course of time we shall get rid of both problems. This is what the Government intends to do. This is how it executes its policy. But since the hon. member has now devoted two of his speeches to fowls and fowl produce, I could not help laughing when I remembered yesterday’s interjection: “The hon. member is certainly making a fowl speech”! I do not want to imply by that that the hon. member raised something unimportant. I am merely mentioning this point and perhaps it will amuse the hon. member as well. However, I now want to request that we stop these speeches about chickens.

I shall be parochial to-day. I therefore want to make a request to the hon. the Minister for a subsidy on soil conservation works. I want to speak about soil conservation works which are executed in the Kalahari by means of internally-lined and covered pit-dams (kuildamme). In respect of this I feel that the hon. the Minister can grant subsidies. In the Kalahari, which is about three million morgen in extent and virtually big enough for an individual state, the people call these dams “gatdamme”, but I do not like such a name and therefore call them “kuildamme”. My point of departure is not so much water conservation for then I should have had to speak under the Water Affairs Vote. My point of departure is actually soil conservation. In the Kalahari there are about 38 farms of about 422,000 morgen in extent. These farms lie in a salt belt where, according to geologists, there is no underground fresh water to be found. These farms were approved by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and allocated as economic units. Quite a number of farmers are making a living in this area. On most of these farms there are dams which are actually large pans and in rainy seasons these “gatdamme” are filled. There is but little rainfall in this area, but there are heavy downpours at times. At very great cost the tenants and owners of farms increased the depth of the dams on their farms. However, the problem is that the bottoms of these dams have a salt formation. In the summer, when it is hot, the water evaporates tremendously rapidly. The remaining water than becomes more saline. Some of the water also drains away. The majority of these farms have already been planned. To-day about 80,000 head of small stock are kept in this area of 422,000 morgen. According to the criteria laid down by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, about 105,000 or more head of small stock ought to be able to be kept, if there were a good system of camps on every farm and if there were well distributed points for watering the livestock on the farms. When we speak of soil conservation, the first requirement is not to increase the numbers of livestock. The actual requirement is to counter the precariousness of farming in that area. The requirement is for better utilization of the veld so that one can preserve the grass covering of the soil. The problem is that when these “gatdamme” are empty, and they empty very quickly because the evaporation is up to 120 inches per year, those farmers move to the next farm or to the farm of another farmer who can supply them with grazing. The remaining farmers transport water to the farms at tremendous cost. The water is transported to one point on the farm and consequently there is once again the unavoidable trampling of the ground, since the livestock moves only to that point. One feels that tremendous destruction to the veld takes place there as a result of the fact that the people cannot conserve all the water which they catch up in these dams. If one could get a well-equipped, deep and sealed earth dam which was lined internally, and to-day dams are lined with plastic material, water could be pumped from these dams by means of a system of pipes and could then be distributed to various points nn the farm where it was needed. This would then lead to improved soil conservation. Taking these facts into consideration, I want to ask that there should also be subsidies payable for these works just as there are for other soil conservation works. This work is already being done by companies to-day, but the costs involved are relatively high for the kind of farmer we find there. Since we should like to keep young farmers in the country districts, I want to make this emphatic plea to-day. I want to make a strong plea for these people to be helped since they are not yet financially in a position to carry the costs. Since we already know that such works are being done and since we can get the specifications from the companies, the Department can draw up its own specifications and ascertain for itself whether it would, in fact, be efficient. I personally am sure that we are dealing here with soil conservation works which are efficient and which can preserve the soil of the Kalahari for us in future so that it is not trampled and only the red sand left which would subsequently move away to the east.

Mr. Chairman, I have been wondering for a long time how it would be if one were to rise in this House one day and find that there was not a single U.P. member to listen to what one had to say. This afternoon we have only four U.P. members in this House. This is the interest the U.P. shows in the debate on agriculture, and this is the case after last Friday when, like baboons on a hot tin roof, they jumped up here to object to the adjournment of the House because there was no work to proceed with, whereas in actual fact there was sufficient work but special circumstances obtained. This is the interest in agriculture on the other side of the House. Sir, I could drive from here to my constituency, a distance of 900 miles, without driving through one single U.P. constituency. In nine months’ time, when the next elections are due, it will be great to say to our voters, “Take a look at this; here we have four U.P. members in this House when agriculture is being discussed, a debate for which 13½ hours have been set aside”. Amongst the four U.P. members sitting over there, there is not one who represents an agricultural constituency. I must admit, though, that three of them are farmers and the other one is an attorney, but he does not know anything about farming. This is the degree of interest shown by the United Party in agriculture! If one looks at the chaotic position on that side of the House, one feels that the U.P. should not try to point a finger at us again. An attorney has to act as Whip here this afternoon to lead the few farmers in this debate. This is the U.P. which wants to govern the country! And then the senior member on the United Party side still had the audacity this afternoon to say that if they came into power, they would establish such and such a board and implement such and such a policy. They will not come into power for the next two centuries.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to earth. The hon. the Minister asked us in fact to help him with the problems he posed here this afternoon. Unfortunately I cannot help the Minister as far as that part of his problems are concerned. I should like to discuss something local; I should like to mention something in my constituency in as far as it affects the agricultural college in Potchefstroom, and in that regard I want to say that I was in fact disappointed when I looked at the building programme and saw that no provision had been made for the construction of a lecture hall at the agricultural college, a lecture hall which we require so urgently. I know that it is very difficult to keep pace as far as the building programme is concerned. I know that there simply is not sufficient money for making provision for all the necessary extensions, but one is concerned about the available facilities. In one of the laboratory-cum-lecture halls it is a veritable infliction for a lecturer to try to keep his students awake on hot days, and if it is at all possible to attend to that one particular aspect only, and especially to the laboratory for veterinary services at the agricultural college for the Highveld Region as well, it will be appreciated very highly. As far as buildings are concerned, these are probably the two greatest bottlenecks at that agricultural college at this stage.

Then there is another matter I just want to touch upon: At the agricultural college we have a herd of Africander cattle which is very well known and held in high repute, and which has probably been kept there for more than 60 years. The Tswana territory borders directly on this area. In addition, the agricultural college for the Highveld Region at Potchefstroom is actually the source of knowledge for the Tswana territory. The Tswana territory is also a region where people farm pre-eminently with Africander cattle. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister whether they would give consideration to donating that herd of Africander cattle to the Tswana Territorial Authority for the purpose of establishing a proper herd of Africander cattle in the Tswana territory. This is an area which lends itself to that; it is a cattle area and it will definitely be a very fine gesture. This will not only benefit the Bantu in that territory, but it will, in addition, definitely be of great benefit to the Whites whose farms border directly on that territory.

Then there is a third matter which I should like to mention. On page 194 of the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services I notice that on 30th June. 1967, there was provision for 1,720 professional posts, but on that day 185 of them were vacant, i.e. 10.8 per cent. On 30th June, last year, there were 1,742 posts and 293 of them were vacant, i.e. 16.8 per cent. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that this position is a major source of concern to all of us, because as far as I am concerned, these researchers, these scientists, are one of the mainstays of the agricultural industry. To my mind they are one of the mainstays of the entire farming industry of South Africa. These people do not resign because they are dissatisfied with their working conditions. They resign because the Public Service does not afford them sufficient security from a pension and medical fund, etc., point of view, but what is in fact extremely important is the salary position of these people. A person studies at very great expense until he obtains his, for example, doctor’s degree, and then he comes back and what does he find? He finds that the commencing salary of a traffic inspector is R1,628 after six months. The commencing salary of a professional officer with a B.Sc. degree is R1,680 and he is appointed on R1,920. After three and a half years the traffic inspector can earn a salary of R2,280, and after five years he comes on to the scale of R2,520 which rises to R3,000 after seven years—i.e. seven years after Std. VIII that traffic inspector can earn R3,000.

Take, however, the case of a student who obtains his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees. If he is very brilliant and passes year after year, i.e. within the absolute minimum periods, he obtains that degree seven or eight years after matriculation, i.e. nine or ten years after Std. VIII. Then he is appointed in an agricultural post at a salary of R3,000 per year. Under these circumstances we must very seriously ask ourselves whether we are in all respects—not only as regards working conditions, but also as regards the question of salaries—paying the necessary attention to these scientists of our Departments. If these professional officers are doing very well and if they gain promotion very quickly, they can advance to R4,200 after a period of 16 years, and after 20 years, as I work out the scale, they can advance to R4,800 per year, i.e. R400 per month. Compare the position of this professional officer with that of the professional man, the accountant, the attorney or the medical practitioner. After five or six years these professional people can earn between R400 and R1,000 per month.

I appreciate that the State cannot pay the salaries that are being paid outside. The State cannot compete with a profession. But we must accommodate these researchers and professional officers who are one of the mainstays of the agricultural industry in such a way that it would no longer be necessary for us to look at figures of this nature and to hear that these people have accepted positions at fertilizer or other companies. I think that it is also necessary to pay attention to the promotion possibilities for these officers in the Department itself. I understand that one of my colleagues suggested last night that these people need not necessarily be promoted to senior posts in the administrative section. I cannot see any reason why a senior researcher in the Department cannot gain promotion to a post where his salary would be comparable to or even higher than that of the Secretary.

We must pay those people salaries which are commensurate with the value of the services they have to render. The experience I have gained from working together with officials of the agricultural college at Potchefstroom and with other officials, not only of this Department but also of other Departments, is that they are not so much complaining about their working conditions and about security: they feel, however, that their salaries simply do not bear any relation to the time and money their studies cost them. These people attend a university for seven or eight or nine years; it costs them between R6,000 and R7,000, and I think that through his Department the hon. the Minister may possibly review this aspect of the staff structure once again.

The hon. member who has just sat down had a very bright idea, which must have given a certain amount of amusement to hon. members on that side of the House. They have been sitting here throughout the debate watching to see when the proportion of United Party members listening to the debate would fall below the proportion of Nationalist members listening to the debate. There were very few members on the other side, proportionately, listening to this agricultural debate yesterday, and to-day they have been watching to see how many members on this side are present in the House, and the hon. member who has just sat down has caught us at a moment when, proportionately, there are fewer United Party members than Nationalists listening to the debate. I have no doubt that the Whips got busy yesterday and said to them: “Kêrels, dit is ’n landboudebat; julle moet bier wees.” That is why they have all come into the House. [Interjections.] We have the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development sitting here. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture is also here; I do not know where the Minister is.

He will be here in a moment.

Sir, it is a reflection on that side of the House that the hon. member who has just sat down, who is an attorney and who knows nothing about farming, has had to come into the debate to put forward a plea in the interests of the farming community.

He made a good speech.

Yes, he made a better speech than hon. members on the other side who represent the farming community. Like a true lawyer he has had to face this question honestly …

He is a good farmer too.

Sir, to show how bad things have become in the country, I want to quote a telegram which has just been received.

Where did you send it from? [Interjections.]

I admit that I know nothing about this at all and the Deputy Minister can tell me whether what is stated here is correct.

Why do you not sit down then? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that it is about cotton. Apparently he has also been receiving telegrams. The telegram reads—

That falls under commerce and industry; not agriculture.

The telegram ends with the word “help”. I am glad to hear that the Deputy Minister has been getting telegrams too, and perhaps he will take this opportunity of telling the country and this House why the price of cotton has been reduced to its lowest level for 11 years. Perhaps he will make a statement so that we can tell the cotton farmers what the trouble is. They know, of course, that the real trouble is that the wrong Government is in power but they cannot do anything about that overnight. Perhaps the Government will tell us what they are going to do to help the cotton farmers.

Sir, I want to get on to something else. I notice that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is in the House. Perhaps he can give us this information. I notice that provision is made in the South-West Africa Account for the buying out of farms and properties on the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission, R450,000; then provision is made for R100 for buying outlying non-white reserves. Provision is also made for R200,000 for the purchase of land and improvements for public purposes. I want to know in the first place where this land is situated that we are buying in South-West Africa.

It is not necessarily for my purposes.

The Minister of Agriculture can tell us what the position is then.

It may be for other purposes.

The Minister of Agriculture can tell us where this land is being bought, for what purpose it is being bought and what happens to it once it has been bought and before it is used for the purpose for which it has been bought. I ask this because so often we find, I suppose in South-West Africa as well as in the Republic, that land is bought for Bantu occupation and that it then lies fallow for years in some cases before it is put to any proper use. We would like to hear from the hon. the Minister what is happening in this case. As I have said, provision is also being made for R100 for the buying of outlying non-white reserves. I take it that this R100 is a token figure. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will tell us where these outlying non-whites reserves, which they intend buying, are situated.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal now with another matter, which will be a relief to hon. members opposite because it is not a contentious matter. I refer to Vote No. 18, Deeds Offices. Sir, this Department is the Cinderella of the Public Service. Not so many years ago the Deeds Office was in a bad way. They were far behind in registering deed but they have now reached the stage where they are just about able to register deeds in the time laid down. In Cape Town they were working to the time schedule until just recently. They have now fallen behind again and they are a day and a half or two days behind. I understand that the reason for this is because some of the staff have had to be sent up to Pietermaritzburg, where of course we all know the conditions were very bad and they had fallen far behind the schedule for registering deeds. Of course this shortage of staff will continue in the Deeds Office and in any other Government office where the staff are called upon to perform specialized duties. We have long contended through the law societies that the Deeds Office personnel, the registrars and the senior examiners, should be put on a professional basis. While they are on the present salary scales, where they are doing professional work, they should be treated on a professional basis, and I think this Department should be put under the Department of Justice, when these officials will be treated in the same way in which the Department of Justice treats its officials who do professional work.

The matter becomes serious because the delay in registering deeds can cause great financial loss. There are several hundreds of deeds registered every day in Cape Town alone, and when one considers the price for land to-day and one remembers that when a sale is concluded and a guarantee is furnished for the payment of the purchase price, that money lies idle until the deed has been registered or the bond has been registered, when the money is paid over, one realizes that somebody must lose money daily. And interest has to be paid on that money. Therefore I say the Minister will have to give more attention to this matter. It is becoming a serious matter, especially, as I say, with the high price of land to-day. We cannot afford to have interest paid on money which is not being put to use but which lies idle in a trust fund waiting to be paid out until such time as the Deeds Office can cope with the work. We raise this matter of the Deeds Office yearly, but we get no further with the Minister. I ask him now to give more consideration to the suggestions we made in the oast, that he put his examiners in the Deeds Office on a different basis and that he treat them as professional people: and I think the Minister will agree that it is now time that the Deeds Office be taken away from the Department of Lands and handed over to the Department of Justice.

The hon. member for Transkei will pardon me if I do not follow up what he said in regard to the South-West matter or in regard to the Deeds Office. I want to use the time at my disposal to suggest something here which, I consider, will be conducive to bringing about stability in the agricultural industry. Before I make those representations to the Minister, allow me by way of introduction to present to the House my standpoint in regard to my views on the steps taken by the Government and the National Party in respect of the agricultural industry in South Africa. These views have very definitely been mentioned in the course of this debate and for that reason I shall not go into much detail, but I want to refer briefly to the fact that year after year this Government has made increasingly more capital available to the farmers of South Africa for various purposes. In the first place, to provide them with capital for the purchase of land, to settle farmers on the land and to keep them there, capital for production purposes, capital for the purpose of propping up the prices of agricultural produce, capital for research and extension purposes. etc. The Deputy Minister has already mentioned that in these Estimates the large amount of R215 million was made available for these purposes which I have just mentioned. This has resulted in the capital assets of the agricultural industry showing an increase. I mention this because I am convinced that, if this National Government had not made available millions of rands for the agricultural industry every year, it would not have been possible for the value of the capital assets of the agricultural industry to show an increase as reflected in these supplementary particulars to the abstract of agricultural statistics in the Republic of South Africa. I just want to mention a few figures in brief.

In 1961 the capital value was R4,897 million, and in 1967 it was estimated that the capital value of the agricultural industry had increased to R6,265 million. I repeat that if it had not been for the generosity of the National Government, it would not have been possible for those capital assets of the agricultural industry to increase to that extent. If one looks at the figures from 1961 right through to 1967, this amounts to more or less R200 million a year, i.e. the increase in the capital value. But I cannot omit to call attention to the other side as well. Having put forward this case very strongly and emphasized it, I want to say that the total outstanding debts of farmers at the various bodies which I am going to mention, were as follows: On 31st December, 1966, these debts amounted to R142 million at the Land Bank; in 1967 they amounted to R183 million and in 1968 to R200 million. Agricultural Credit: There they amounted to R90 million, R112 million and R125 million over the same periods. As far as co-operative societies are concerned: here the liabilities of farmers amounted to R50 million in 1966, R62 million in 1967 and R66 million in 1968. It is conspicuous that at commercial banks the figures are different. At the latter the liabilities showed a decrease, but in total, in respect of those three years, the figure increased from R1,026.6 million on 31st December, 1966, to R1,071 million in 1968.

But this is not the only facet of the picture I want to present. Also as far as the Land Bank itself is concerned, the position is that since 1964 the long-term debts of farmers increased from R141,484,000 to R195,257,000. I want to repeat what I said at the outset. If it had not been for the generosity of this Government, these statistics, which I have just mentioned, would have given much more cause for concern than they do now.

Now I come to the thought I mentioned at the outset. On the one hand we have this increase in capital, but, on the other hand, we have this increase in the burden of debt. I am not concerned about the percentage of people who are in arrears, because this is reasonably stable and is not alarming. What I am concerned about, is the increasing burden of debt resting on the agricultural industry, in spite of this fantastic contribution which the Government makes every year, that contribution which is being scorned by the Opposition. I repeat that if it had not been for this assistance, the position would have been very different. But it is not for us to fix our minds on this position only. I want to tell you a few things about a co-operative society in my own constituency so as to show that the position there is not much better. I have the figures with me. The position there is that merely in respect of fertilizer the amount owed by farmers to the co-operative societies increased from R1,300,000 in 1964 to R2.5 million in 1968. My time is running short and I want to make haste, and now I want to express this thought. Is it not possible for us to introduce a production costs insurance scheme for the agricultural industry, because those farmers who get into difficulties and in arrears, do not find themselves in that position because of the price structure, since the Government has seen to it that the maximum price could be announced. That position is attributable to climatic conditions. But I also want to mention another figure. In 1966 the same cooperative society had a production of 5.7 million bags of maize, and this year, which was a year of drought, 550,000 bags are expected. If we had had a production costs insurance scheme, we would have been able to relieve those farmers of those tremendous burdens which are resting on their shoulders. I know that this is a major undertaking and that it also requires a tremendous amount of investigation, but I am pleading here with the Government that such a scheme be introduced as soon as it is practicable to do so. I am also doing this by way of supporting the hon. member for Christiana.

My time is short, but there is another matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. It is in regard to these regulations published in Gazette R.519 of 29th March, 1968, the regulations in terms of the Livestock Brands Act. In Regulation No. 10 there is an explanation of how brands should be effected. They are to consist of four characters, namely three letters from the second annexure placed next to and half an inch from each other. Those branding-iron symbols or characters are to be 1¼ in. or 1⅝ in. high at the highest point and 1¼ in to 1⅝ in. wide at the widest part. In addition one may only brand the animal on the lower part of its hind leg, or on its neck. Now I ask you, Sir, if one looks at these symbols in this annexure, one sees that there are various characters. For instance, one has an upside-down M and B, and one has the upside-down W, and in terms of the Act such letters can qualify for being registered as a branding-iron. One has the A with two small bars, and this A points in four different directions, upside-down and sideways. How can any farmer effect these symbols with those sizes by means of a hot branding-iron or a chemical substance without causing a stain or causing the fluid to run and without these characters becoming illegible? The trouble is that, if livestock are found in the possession of a farmer and these brands are not legible, that farmer can be prosecuted if he cannot convince the authorities that that is the brand which was effected by means of this branding-iron. And I say, without beating about the bush, that these symbols, these characters, as printed here, cannot be effected by any veterinary surgeon or farmer in a legible way, and I ask for this regulation to be repealed. [Time expired.]

I have been listening attentively to this debate during the past few days, and I should like to discuss a few of the Opposition’s arguments, but I note that the hon. member for Newton Park is not in the House at present. I shall therefore leave it at that. A good deal was said here about agricultural problems, and about what the real problems of our farmers are. I think it is also our duty to make suggestions as to what assistance the farmers should be given to solve their problems. To-day I want to confine myself to uneconomic farming units, collective farming and the purchasing of land, and here I want to refer in particular to land which has been allocated to persons in terms of irrigation schemes. We know that such land is allocated at prices far below the realistic value of that land. The lucky person who obtains such a smallholding is in effect winning a lottery ticket because he can subsequently sell that smallholding and make a considerable profit. This is one of those things we cannot allow. I do not think we should allow a person who has received land from the state to sell it afterwards for his own gain. We know that in the past some of the most densely populated settlements were regarded as welfare undertakings. Consequently the persons who were placed on those settlements were not always the best farmers. But to-day this is no longer the case. In conjunction with this I want to refer to land which is purchased by means of State aid, particularly to the young farmer and to the man who has saved up and now wants to begin farming. Over the years these people were always able to acquire land to rent On those farms they were then able to prove whether they would be competent farmers. I personally have helped many people to become owners of such land because they proved that they would be competent farmers, if they were only afforded an opportunity of acquiring their own piece of land. But rented land is a luxury to-day. Rentable land simply does not come on to the market any more, and when such a piece of land does in fact come on to the market, it is snatched up by the big farmers. I think the Government must make such land available again so that prospective farmers can prove whether they are going to be successful farmers. But we know that the State unfortunately does not have such land. In European countries, and also in Australia, most of the land is rentable land. Farmers are granted usufruct on that land and can then leave it to their offspring as an inheritance. I think the Minister laid his finger on the sore point here yesterday. If a man wants to begin to farm and he must get together the capital for that purpose, he is already out of the running because he does not have the working capital to go further. This is also the pattern in other branches of our economy. In the business world, for example, we find that the man who gets together the capital to buy business premises is not the man who runs the business. The vast majority of shopkeepers are lessees. They lease the premises, although the premises were purchased by some other person. That is why I think the idea expressed by the Minister is worth looking into. What I want to say is that if a farmer knows that he only has to nay the rental very few farmers will find themselves in difficulties. That is why I feel that making rentable land available deserves to be thoroughly investigated. The State must again purchase land for prospective farmers, who can then rent it from the State at, say, 5 per cent of the purchase price. The other requisites, such as livestock, implements, fuel, seed and fertilizer can then be made available to him in the normal way by Agricultural Credit. If this man now meets his obligations and proves that he is a good farmer his lease can be made over to him as a testatory contract which he can bequeath to his children. Or he must be given the choice, after ten years, of buying, subject to the condition that he will not try to sell that land within ten years merely to make a profit. This is to prevent speculation. I am putting forward this suggestion because I think it can be investigated to good effect.

In addition I want to talk about uneconomic units. Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to convey my sincere thanks to the Minister for this assistance in making economic units out of uneconomic units, either by the purchase of adjoining land, or the purchase of uneconomic units. This scheme is working very well. We are very grateful, since it is assisting these smaller farmers.

But I want to raise a third matter. Many of these units, which are regarded as being uneconomic, are in reality not uneconomic. It is mostly a case of that man not having sufficient working capital, of his applying the wrong farming methods, or something of that nature. That is why I want to ask whether it is not possible, with technical and financial assistance from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, or perhaps a committee consisting of farmers, for us to make the necessary funds available to these uneconomic farmers so that they can farm economically. If such a farmer agrees to co-operate, the extension officer, with his committee, can obtain control over the land and utilize it. I am convinced that if we render assistance in this way to these people it will be possible to convert many of these smaller units, particularly arable land, into economic units. We will be able to develop these to great advantage. I also want to suggest that in such cases that expensive machinery should be acquired on a collective basis, or on a rented basis, so that the farmer has no need, if he wants to set about things in a scientific way and cultivate that uneconomic unit, in an intensive way, to incur such heavy capital expenditure. Implements remain a major problem to our farmers. Annually R400 million is being invested in farm equipment and machinery. The maintenance costs are tremendous. That is why I feel we should make greater use of the leasing system to help our small farmers in this way. We can do this by means of a leasing system, on a collective basis, so that those machines can be purchased by a group of farmers and in this way a few farmers can do the same work which one farmer is doing today. I want to lay heavy stress on this matter. We can convert a great percentage of these uneconomic units into economic units, to the benefit of our country. [Time expired.]

I do not want to react to any great extent to the two speeches that have just been made. I just want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Harrismith, who quoted a large number of figures. He quoted figures ad nauseam, figures that have been quoted here during the two days’ debate, for instance the advances of R195 million made by the Land Bank. We admit and know that they are correct. We have quoted them from this side. I quoted them. But the fact is that a large section of the farming community is in economic difficulties. That is a fact. That is the point we on this side of the House are making. Something must be done to help them and save them for the agricultural industry. That is our point and it has been admitted by several members on the other side. Those members who do not admit it, know nevertheless that it is true.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) made a very interesting statement, one in which I am sure the hon. member for Brits ought to be particularly interested. The hon. member for Brits made a terrific attack yesterday on the late Senator Conroy’s settlement policy.

It was a disastrous policy.

One of the points he made was that the settlers could not sell their land. He said, “Hulle was nie baas van hulle grond nie”. Now the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) says that a settler who receives ground should not be allowed to sell that ground within a certain period.

Not immediately. [Interjections.]

That was his policy. That was what he said. They could not sell it within 10 years’ time. The hon. member makes exactly the same statement. Yes, Sir, these people are coming round to the United Party every day. They take over parts of our policy. We welcome it.

I want to speak on Vote 19, Surveys. I want to refer hon. members to the staff position in connection with the officers of the Surveyors-General and the Trigsurvey office. From a recent report I quote the following in connection with the Surveyor-General’s office:

Sir, these shortages are extremely acute and are getting worse. In the Trigonometry Survey office there are four vacancies on the professional staff. On the technical staff in one section alone, where there should be 60 technicians, there are only 30. The Trigonometry office does work for us in mapping our country, which in the present state of the world in which we live, is absolutely essential. They do most essential work, and they are extremely handicapped by this shortage of staff. In the Surveyor-General’s office in the Cape there is also an acute shortage of professional staff, as well as of technical staff. The delay in examining records and diagrams is between three and four months. The hon. member for Transkei has already mentioned what these delays can mean in paying double interest. I will not go over that again; it has already been mentioned.

In the Transvaal office of the Surveyor-General there are six professional posts. They have one professional man on the permanent I staff who is over 60 years of age. They have two temporary men, who are over the age. They retired some time ago and are doing temporary work. That is what the professional staff in the Transvaal consists of, out of the actual six.

In view of the acute shortages in the administration offices in this country, right throughout all the departments, do hon. members not think it would have been better if there had been less shortages in the administration offices of the country and more on the benches on the other side of the House? Would we not have done better? With regard to these shortages, I would like to draw the attention to the position with regard to the survey profession in this country. There are 550 registered land surveyors in the Republic. However, they are not all practising. There are some of them who are registered but are not practising. So, the numbers that are actually practising, are less than that. It has been calculated that the annual wastage amounts to about 40 a year, i.e. surveyors who die or retire. They very seldom retire. Many of them have to work to a very old age, but there comes a day when they can do it no more.

Or they enter into politics.

One wonders. Only one of them has done it. But there are about 40 who leave the profession every year for various reasons. Now, how many qualified? In 1963, nine qualified; in 1964 ten; in 1965, two; in 1966, two; and in 1967, seven. In 1968, however, not a single land surveyor qualified in this country. What is going to happen to the development of this country if this is to continue? Thirty qualified over a period of six years, during which time I think the wastage would have been round about 240. This is an impossible situation. We cannot allow it to continue. I just want to give you an idea as to what the position is in this country. As far as I know and I may be wrong here and there, there is a land surveyor at Upington, Calvinia, Carnarvon, Kimberley, Somerset East, Beaufort West, Umtata, Oudtshoorn, Springbok, Vredendal and Ceres. This excludes the cities and the Western Province. Those land surveyors have to cover the whole of the platteland in the Cape Province. I did not count them but I think there are about ten. It is an impossible situation which is rapidly developing and may lead to the ruination of this country. What are the reasons? The reasons are first of all that the engineering profession is a far more attractive one. It is a four-year course at the University of Cape Town. At other universities it may take a little longer. Land surveying on the other hand is a four-year university course, and after that a surveyor has to undergo practical training. It takes a person altogether five years to become a surveyor. Secondly, their income is comparatively low. A land surveyor’s income is a low income compared with that of other professional men to-day. The time has come that the hon. the Minister must very seriously consider increasing the tariffs for land surveyors, if he wants to rectify the position which is threatening this country. The course is a very difficult one, because it is a highly academic course. Very many who take this course never qualify. The life of a land surveyor is an unsettled one. He is very often away from home for long periods. The position to-day with motor cars and good roads is of course different to what it used to be. I can remember being away for periods of a month up to three months. There are still many land surveyors to-day who do trigonometrical surveys who have to be away for a month at least. It is an unsettled life. It is not one people would like to choose.

There is another matter which worries the land surveyors who are officials of the department. This concerns the question of pensions. Land surveyors, until a few years ago, were not appointed as officials unless they had ten years practical experience in the field. This period has since been shortened to five years. That meant that he could only be appointed at the age of 31 to 33 years. Only then did he start contributing to a pension fund. The result is that when a surveyor retires on pension such pension is in fact very small. This makes it unattractive. A system has since been introduced whereby they are allowed to pay in an amount in order to give them their full pension. But these amounts they have to pay in are exorbitant. I know of a person in the trigonometry department in the city who has to pay in R12,000. It is impossible for him to do this.

Then it must be a good pension.

How can it be such a good pension if these people are getting the ordinary civil service salary? The pension is based on that. But he now has to pay in R12,000 in respect of arrear pension contributions over a period of 10 years in order to get a full pension. Others of course have to pay less. I am quoting this as an extreme case. These people say that unless they do that, they cannot get a pension on which they can live. Something will have to be done in regard to this matter. I therefore, want to ask the hon. the Minister to go into this matter very carefully to see what he can do about it. That and the increase in tariffs are two of the most important aspects in connection with land surveying. There are no young people taking this course at the university. Many of our present land surveyors are old people and many are leaving the profession. I know of two such cases in the country. I do not wish to mention their names. One of them is coming down to Cape Town and is going into business. The other one, on the other hand, feels that the work is becoming too much for him and that he cannot do it any longer. Something has to be done to make this profession more attractive. This can be done firstly, by giving them a better tariff, and secondly by seeing that civil servants get a better pension.

Mr. Chairman, I shall reply later to what the hon. member for Gardens said. However, I should like to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for South Coast, i.e. that nowhere in South Africa can a farmer buy land at to-day’s prices on which he can go and farm without plunging himself more deeply into debt.

I asked whether that was possible.

You said that nowhere in our country could you buy land without finding yourself in financial difficulties.

I asked whether it can be bought.

I say it can. Definitely. I can show you many farms which young farmers are buying to-day and on which they are making a success, paying their accounts and making the grade. I can show you many.

Are they paying off on the capital, or not?

They meet their interest charges and capital redemption. But they also use their heads.

You have not answered my question.

No, I am replying to the statement made by the hon. member for South Coast. That statement creates the impression that the Government does not care much about this situation. Then the hon. member went further and said that it was an obsession with this Minister to produce more at lower prices with fewer farmers. You said that a moment ago. Yesterday the hon. the Minister told you twice that he will be only too grateful if he could keep the men on the land as they are to-day. Members on this side and on that side of the House have asked for units to be increased in size. What must we do? We simply have to do it, and you agree with that. Now you want to keen the number the same. The hon. the Minister then asked you how you were going to keep them there. I do not want to spend any more time on this matter. The hon. the Minister put it to you in a masterly fashion so as to make you understand that this is not something which rests in our hands. I quoted to you yesterday what was happening in other countries. However, you have only one object in mind with this two-day argument on this matter. You want to go back and tell the people you pleaded that the farmer should remain on the land. But they are not stupid any more, far from it. The farmer himself sees that his production costs are rising. Then there is the argument of the efficient farmer. They are annoyed by this argument. That is so.

Now the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) comes along and asks what the standpoint of the Government is in connection with Tongaat. Personally I am very much perturbed at what is happening in the case of Tongaat. We are all perturbed, because there are people who are making their living from egg farming. Eventually they are going to be pushed out. We are not mincing matters. Now I ask you whether we should introduce a quota system. Should we say that a person is to produce only a certain quantity and no more?

I asked you to investigate that system.

Very well. You should not simply generalize and then adopt the attitude that we are trying to explain away these things in connection with Tongaat. That is definitely not the case. We cannot say to a person: “You may not produce more than 10,000 bags of maize or 20,000 dozens of eggs.” There are two products in our country which are subject to quotas, and in neither case do matters function properly. The one product is wine and the other is sugar. This system works only to a certain extent, and there is no long-term solution. I have said before what would happen if we were to say to a farmer who produced, for example, 5,000 bags of maize during the past five years, that that was his quota and that he was not allowed to produce more than 5,000 bags of maize. A drought such as the one we have just had may come along and the farmer may produce only 1.000 bags of maize. What is his solution then? He must produce 9,000 bags of maize in the next year to make good this loss. How can we apply a quota system in such a case, especially when we cannot control the price of the product because it has to be sold on die world market, and when we sometimes produce a surplus? When the hon. member said that I felt very unhappy. That is why I am replying to it now.

The other matter which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) mentioned was to place a lew on the hen. This is a very practical idea. The Egg Control Board is going into this matter at present. They have sent a mission overseas to ascertain how overseas countries apply the levy on the hen instead of on the egg, and whether it would be practical to apply it here. Those hon. members do not always make statements with which I cannot agree.

I now want to come back to what the hon. member for Potchefstroom said. He suggested that we should give Africander cattle from the herd which the Department has at Potchefstroom, to the Tswana. This is a very fine and praiseworthy idea, but I want to suggest that this should be done in the same way as in the case of the other donations which are made. The Frisian Breeders’ Association may perhaps decide to join the department in donating some Frisian heifers. The whole objet of this is goodwill and business. The Tswana and the man in Malawi see the quality of the cattle which they get from us, and they place their orders for heifers and bulls with us. In this way we help each other. I think we should give attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Transkei read from a telegram and pointed out that the cotton price was the lowest in 11 years. That is not so. If the price which we have in mind is accepted it will be the same as the 1967 price, but negotiations are still in progress. I want to tell you that I have been present when the hon. the Minister of Agriculture pleaded for a certain orice for the product of the farmer. Without being negative now, I must say that at that stage it is no longer the responsibility of our Department, but the responsibility of the Department of Commerce and Industries. But in the meantime we are receiving telegrams, because everyone thinks that our Department is to blame.

I also want to reply to the hon. member for Transkei in regard to the land to the value of R450,000 which has been bought. The reply is briefly as follows: The Commission of Investigation into South-West Africa Affairs, 1962, recommended that various farms and urban properties be bought up to be added to the proposed Bantu homelands in South-West Africa. Up to 31st December, 1968, R25.2 million had already been spent for this purpose. To complete the scheme, only five more farms and properties have to be bought during 1969-’70, at an estimated amount of R450,000. I need not read the whole of the reply here, but this is for farms in South-West Africa so that the Odendaal Plan may be carried out.

I now come to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. He spoke about the staff position. A nation which is functioning correctly and which is able to make its machinery of State run smoothly is a nation with between 3 and 5 per cent unemployed people. It is a nation which can use its people as it wants to and which can make them pull their full weight. But with our economic development, and because we have tackled the development of this country in a positive way, there is too much work for everyone to do in this country, if he wants to. Now we have a white manpower shortage in the country. We must be very careful to retain our people. I agree with the hon. member as far as this Department is concerned, and we are perturbed about it. But the work is still going on. We have been hearing for 15 years now that there are two few workers, but nevertheless we are doing the work nearly as efficiently as ever, but with fewer workers.

I want to refer to what the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Kroonstad said in connection with the integration of deeds offices with the Department of Justice. I think that the hon. the Minister will reply to this further. An inter-departmental committee has been asked for to investigate the whole matter. Perhaps there is something to be said for it, but I rather want to leave it in the hands of the hon. the Minister.

We have been discussing agriculture for two days already, and I find it disappointing that none of the Opposition members has yet referred to the departmental reports which they receive. A department such as the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has about 6,000 officials for 90,000 farmers. Have hon. members ever considered that? We have only 6,000 officials to attend to the needs of 90,000 farmers. These surpluses which we have to-day are not only as a result of the actions of the farmers. Sixty per cent of the surpluses may be attributable to the farmers themselves, but 40 per cent of them, in the case of many farmers, are attributable to the fact that they received technical guidance from this Department. As an example I take the case of hybrid maize seed. Eighteen years ago we obtained PPK. 64 and SA. 9 maize seed. After 18 years we are still planting it. This is seed which the Department made available to us. In the meantime private organizations have tried to produce better seed, but we are still using the seed which the Department supplied to us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on Vote 20—Agricultural Technical Services. May I have the privilege of the half-hour? Before I actually come to this Vote, I should like to put a question to the Minister in connection with chief professional officers which are mentioned on page 89. I notice that the number of these officers has been reduced from 24 in 1968-’69 to 14 in 1969-’70. I shall be pleased if the Minister can explain this decrease to us at a later stage.

I should like to start by congratulating the Department of Agricultural Technical Services on once more producing an excellent annual report.

Thank the Minister.

No, I am thanking the Department this time. The Minister had nothing to do with this report. He has, however, an excellent department, and I should like to express my thanks to them for producing this report. They have produced it in good time. It came out fairly early. It is a report which is full of detail and Very valuable information. Our thanks go out to the department for it. This report, especially with regard to soil conservation, makes really sad reading. It exposes a shocking state of affairs in this country in connection with soil conservation. We are not making the progress we should be making. In fact, I believe that the overall position is worsening. I believe that the position to-day is worse than it was five, 10 or 15 years ago. By that I am not suggesting that progress is not taking place amongst some people. There are farmers who have done excellent work. They have carried out very good conservation work, and a good number of them are doing very well. But far too much soil erosion is taking place in comparison with the good work which is being done by some people. On the whole I think that we are losing the battle in regard to soil conservation. The officials, such as the extension officers, the scientists and the departmental officials are dedicated to this type of work, because they fully realize the destruction which is taking place. I think that some of them must surely become frustrated because of the insufficient progress which is being made. That may be one of the reasons why so many of them resign from time to time. Year after year we read about the staff shortage. I want to come back to the staff shortage, because it is acute. Although these people have to do more work and in fact do more work than they would normally be required to do, the fact still remains that there are important posts which are not filled. Important research and extension work is therefore not being done. In reading this report, one cannot help gaining the impression that the Government is really not very serious about soil conservation. This problem has not been tackled with the same vigour as, for instance, the matter of defence. Surely, it is just as important to save our country from destruction by this process of soil erosion which is still going on and which is gaining momentum, than it is to save it from an attack from any enemy country. We annually spend R260 million on our Defence Vote, whereas I doubt whether the total amount spent on soil conservation exceeds R10 million.

Much has been said about staff shortages. The paragraph in the report dealing with this matter, reads as follows:

This staff shortage puts a tremendous strain on the staff of the department. They try as far as possible to meet this situation, but I cannot believe that they will ever fully meet it. An effort must be made in order to recruit more staff. Elsewhere in the report it is stated that there is a growing demand for extension officers. How on earth will we be able to meet that growing demand when we cannot even meet the present position? I have said before that this report really makes sad reading. In the chapter of the report where soil conservation is being dealt with, we can see that 577,475 farmers works have been approved of. Of that number only 269,817 works have been completed. In other words, less than half has been completed in over 22 years. The cost of the work which has been completed amounts to about R44 million. That means that over a period of 22 years we have only done work to the value of R44 million. That means that only R2 million is spent per year on one of the biggest national questions which we have in this country. How will we ever be able to cope with this problem if this is the rate at which we are tackling it? Lately there has also been a decrease in the tempo of works that are being completed. In 1965-’66 the number of works approved of were just over 52,000. Of that 26,607, about 50 per cent, were completed. In 1966-’67 45,000 works were approved of; 20,000 of these works were completed. In 1967-’68 nearly 49,000 were approved of while only 22,000 were completed. That shows clearly that the proportion of completed farmers’ works is becoming less. The report goes on to say:

The loan schemes also show a decrease. The works which were approved and were completed are now much less. The report states that the loan scheme for the construction of soil conservation works is tending to fall into disuse. The State itself does not do very much either. During the year 1967-’68 it only planned two schemes at a value of R43 million. That is all that was done during that year. The number of farms physically planned is also decreasing. It has decreased to 3,264, which is 122 less than the previous year. Additional stipulations to soil conservation plans are pitifully low according to the report. In the report it is stated that:

The paragraph under the heading “Resting of veld” reads as follows:

The report also deals with grazing management. It says that:

In the Eastern Cape region, for example, approximately only 3 per cent of the farmers are practising sound veld management, while in the dry Malopo area, which covers more than 4 million morgen of land, this is reduced to less than 1 per cent. Reports from this latter region indicate that, as a result of over-grazing, incorrect grazing methods and the disastrous drought two years ago, this veld is in a critical condition.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question.

Wait a minute, you can make your speech in a moment.

Further, the report reads as follows:

I think the hon. member wanted to ask me whether I would be in favour of compelling these people? I certainly want to say that something must be done. The Government must find means of doing something to save this position. The veld reclamation scheme is something which we thought would do something to rehabilitate the veld. The participation in the reclamation scheme cannot be considered satisfactory, however. Only 12 per cent of the total area has been registered under this scheme. I think the hon. the Minister informed us last year that there were several cases where farmers applied to be registered and after they were registered they withdrew from this scheme again. Surely there must be reasons for that? If a man registers under this scheme and then later withdraws his registration, there must be reasons why he does that. According to the Report there are some improvements and I am very pleased to read of it. The Report also says—

Here there is evidence that there is some improvement with regard to this position. One can only hope that this will continue.

I now want to mention the question of joined cactus and I think it is something that will interest the hon. member for Christiana. In regard to jointed cactus the report states the following:

To some extent there have to be inspectors to see that the plans are carried out. It has to be done. What is the reason for this sad state of affairs? The first one is the economic position of the farmer. Farmers cannot afford to build soil erosion works under the present financial and economic difficulties in which they find themselves. Under the withdrawal scheme, farmers cannot afford to withdraw veld at the rate of R8 per six sheep. I notice that it has been recommended that the Government should increase that to R12. I think the hon. the Minister must very seriously consider this. This scheme, which is an excellent scheme, is breaking down, because as a result of the financial position of the farmers they cannot afford to withdraw veld at the existing rate. If the scheme is going to fall down, then the remedy lies with the Government to increase the subsidy to encourage them and to make it possible for them to withdraw that veld. The Government must consider that very seriously. Many of them do not realize the value of sound farming practice. They do not realize that fewer animals of a better quality can give you the same income on veld of the same size.

That is correct.

Of course that is correct but many of the farmers do not realize it, and therefore we must have the necessary extension officers or other people to convey the knowledge to them and to help them. Sir, there is insufficient training of young farmers at our agricultural colleges. Let me quote what the position is. Let me give the Committee the number of students in 1968, in 1967 and in 1966 at Elsenburg, Cedara, Potchefstroom, Grootfontein and Glen. In 1966 the total number was 476; in 1967 there were 438 and in 1968, 440. Actually there were fewer last year than there were in 1966.

But the facilities are there.

I am not saying that the facilities are not there, but there is something wrong. Why do they not go there? My hon. friends can say that we are trying to drive the young people away from us, but that is not so. We want to help them. The reason why they do not attend these agricultural colleges is that they do not see a future for themselves in agriculture in the present circumstances in South Africa; there is no future for them. The position to-day is that young, unqualified people can come to the cities and get jobs at salaries which far exceed the income of young farmers. That is why they come to the towns.

Is that not a world tendency?

What has that got to do with it?

Sir, what have I got to do with what happens in Russia? I am not interested in what happens in Russia. I am interested in my people in this country.

The reason is quite different from the one you give.

There must be more people made available to go out to enlighten the farmers as to what farming methods to use and to keep them on the right road. I believe that if we have not got sufficient extension officers we should employ good farmers to do this work, but one of my colleagues on this side will have more to say on this aspect. This is something that is very essential and it will be worth a great deal to our farmers.

Sir, the farmer has too many labour problems. Labour for farming purposes is becoming scarcer every day. In the Farmer’s Weekly of the 16th I notice that there is the following headline: “Eastern Transvaal: Farm labour a headache”. That is the position throughout the country. There is a tremendous scarcity of labour for the farmers because they cannot afford to pay the high wages which are paid elsewhere. The policy of the Government is also to remove the Bantu, especially in the Western Province, to their homelands as far as possible. The result is that Coloured people have to replace the Bantu and they are being drawn away from the farmers. We find in the areas where we live that lorry loads of them are fetched every year. The hon. member for Prieska knows that that is true. People come along with lorries and bring them down here to the urban areas, with the result that our labour is becoming scarcer and scarcer. Sir, I believe that every person has the right to sell his labour for as much as he can get for it, and if these Coloured labourers can get better wages in the Boland or in the cities, no one can blame them for going there. But the labour shortage on the farms is growing more acute and the farmers are finding it more difficult to carry on. It is necessary therefore that the available labour should be better trained so that we can get better service out of them and so that they can become more productive. More training centres must be established in the country. We have Kromme Rhee down here which serves the surrounding area, but it does not serve the rest of the country; it serves a very small community, and I believe that it is doing good work. We want many more of these right throughout the country.

Mr. Chairman, our sons, the farmers of the future, the people who have learned to love the land, who are likely to conserve it, now trek to the cities where, as I have said, young people with no qualifications can get larger incomes than the farmers do. Some farmers lose interest in the land if they have no sons to whom they can leave it. With the deterioration in the farmer’s economic position, the loss of his sons to agriculture, the deterioration in grazing conditions and the loss of our top soil at an alarming rate, we are heading for a national disaster. Sir, if the members of the Cabinet—all of them—instead of galavanting all over the country, as they are doing now, would each only spend half an hour reading this report, then we may get some results.

Sir, we have had a Soil Conservation Act for over 20 years, an Act that was hailed as a masterpiece. This is now to be scrapped and we are going to get another one. But unless we can get some drive on the part of somebody on that side of the House we shall go down and down until this side takes over and does the job properly.

Mr. Chairman, you will pardon me for not following up on what the hon. member, who has just spoken, said in his speech. But I informed the hon. member yesterday evening that I should very much like to reply to the statement he made in a previous speech of his here. I hope that the hon. member, when he mentioned my name here the other evening, was not as serious as he appeared to be. I want to ask the hon. member when I said that things were going so well with the farmers, as he quoted here? I want to read what I said and then I want the hon. member to point out to me where I stated in my speech that things were going so well with the farmers. I want to quote from a speech what I said about the farmers. The point under discussion was the question of assistance to farmers, and I said—

I went on to say the following—

That is what it was all about. In addition I said—

That is what I said about the farmers. I went on to say—

I did not say that things were going well with them—

I went on to say—

Did I say that things were going well with the farmers?

Quote further.

I shall do so. I shall not run away from my statements. I went on to say—

I did not say that things were going well with them. I shall quote to the hon. member what I said and I want him to listen very carefully—

They are still doing so now.

I shall return in a moment to that statement. I went on to say—

Read further.

That is what I said about the farmers. I shall not run away from my statements. [Interjection.] I shall come to that hon. member as well, if I only have the time. Sir, I have been sitting here since 1966 now, and I think it is time we obtained clarity in regard to the standpoint of hon. members on that side on agricultural problems. I think that we have been sitting still doing nothing long enough. We spoke about assistance which has, up to the present, been granted to our farmers. Hon. members on the opposite side maintain that the farmers are not being granted sufficient assistance, and that things are going so badly with them. We do not say that things are going well with them, but we make the statement that things are not going so badly with them. In the first instance this district was declared to be a drought-stricken area. Here I have a list of every section in the district which has been entrusted to me, and a few of them have only been declared drought-stricken areas for 11 days. After that they qualified as an emergency loan area for a subsidy. That hon. member was perhaps one of the 362 farmers who applied …

For a loan?

Yes, for a loan and for a subsidy. You qualify for it. My argument is that the hon. member qualifies for it, but then he must not state here that 362 farmers have applied, whereas I had supposedly stated that things were going well with the farmers. It is the policy of the State to help every farmer. That does not mean to say that he must first go bankrupt.

I did not use the word “bankrupt”.

I admit that the hon. member did not use the word but he asked whether things were going well with the farmers when 362 applications had been made for assistance. He implied that since so many farmers were applying for assistance, things could not have been going well with them.

Out of a total of 422.

Yes, out of a total of 422 farms. That does not mean to say that there are 422 farmers.

Of course. The farms do not apply; the farmers apply.

The position of scores and hundreds of these farmers is not such an unfavourable one that they can no longer receive a fodder loan; they are being assisted. I served on the committee for eight years, and there are many of those farmers who still have R3,000, R4,000 or R5,000 in cash.

Those farmers with R4,000 or R5.000 are not entitled to loans.

They are entitled to subsidies.

You spoke about fodder loans.

There are scores of farmers who are being assisted to-day, who still have R2,000 to R3,000 in the bank.

Is that right?

If the farmer can prove that he has to pay his rent the next month, or in two to three months’ time, or if he says that he has children at university and that he has certain obligations to meet, then the committee says: “We cannot allow that man to spend his money on fodder; we want to help him to meet his obligations”. That is the policy of the Department of Agricultural Credit. I know what the policy of Agricultural Credit is. I want to allege that the financial position of these people is not such an unfavourable one as the hon. member wants to imply. Sir, in 1948 our agricultural debt was R336 million, and to-day it is R1,000 million, and our agricultural values at present amount to almost R1,300 million. Must we now tell the world that things are going too badly with the farmers of South Africa?

I was talking about the income of the farmer.

I am coming to that. The United Party puts forward the argument every day that the farmers are no longer solvent.

Some are not.

Yes, some. Throughout our history there have always been some farmers who were not solvent.

Our argument is that the income is too low.

I maintain that there is nobody who is doing the farmer in South Africa more damage than the United Party. There is nobody who discourages the young farmer moire than they do.

Rubbish!

They have no sympathy with the farmers. That is why the counsel given by the hon. member for Parktown to the young farmers is: You may as well close your eyes to the fact, purchase and pay for the land exactly what the other man asks for, because you will in fact get it out of them. Is that the question of a responsible man, to whom others must look up to give to our young farmers? No. I give my farmers counsel as the Minister puts it to them: When you start you must make a calculation of what your income from the farm is and what your liabilities are, and this you can take as a criterion for the future.

I want to conclude by saving that the farmers of South Africa should pay no heed to the United Party. The United Party is trying to do everything specifically to bring the farmers into difficulties, and there are many farmers to-day who are proud of their name and who have a sense of honour when they have to go to the Department of Agricultural Credit. I maintain that those farmers have reached a financial position for reasons which nobody could control. The drought caused it. [Time expired.]

When the present Minister of Agriculture came to Parliament for the first time, he had succeeded in throwing out a very prominent ex-Minister of the United Party Government. That remarkable occasion had such an effect on one very dignified old man in my constituency that, When he went to the stable to milk his few cows after he had heard the report, he tried to milk the bull. If you think that this image I am using in reference to the United Party is too strong, I just want to say that if the present shadow Minister of Agriculture on the other side is not making this mistake, he is milking every dry cow.

Or he milks an ox.

But you will understand that I cannot devote much time to this matter, as the member who spoke before me has already done his share and the United Party has been exposed throughout the debate. That is why I want to leave this subject and briefly to bring something else to the notice of the House.

The show season has just come to an end. During a period of six months, in the spring and also in the summer, hundreds of shows were held all over the country. After that the central shows were held, and finally these were concluded with the Easter Show in Johannesburg. These agricultural societies receive large amounts from the State. They are supported by the State to the tune of hundreds of thousands of rands. As regards the Cape Province, no less than R146,800 was paid in the form of subsidies and other assistance to the registered agricultural societies in 1967-’68. These agricultural societies hold shows, and their purpose is obvious. They must serve as a display-window to show the public what our farmers can produce. It is also a fact that the farmers can learn from one another and can see what quality can be achieved in both livestock and produce. This kind of competition has many good and educational characteristics, and therefore we welcome the assistance given by the State to the societies. However, I do feel that there are some misgivings about the present form of these agricultural shows, and the question arises very clearly whether the holding of these shows still fulfils the original purposes: Are we not subsidizing people who could perhaps advertise their goods in a different way, by means of advertisements, in that we are giving them free advertising facilities and State-aided advertisements at these shows? The time when our farmers did not know what Frisian cattle really looked like is past. To-day people know, thanks to the instruction that is given to them by the Department of Agriculture, what the quality of a good animal should be. There are exceptions when new breeds and new plants are developed, and then such a show still has an educational purpose, but I nevertheless feel that since we generally have farmers to-day who are striving to farm with the best possible stock, if not pedigree stock, it is well known what standards stock should comply with. Therefore I feel it is to be welcomed that our present Deputy Minister of Agriculture made a few telling remarks at the central show at Bloemfontein in regard to this matter. I quote—

I see that my time is running out, and therefore I shall content myself with this one quotation, and I just want to say that I am convinced that the agricultural societies can render a much greater service to agriculture if factors other than the purely external factors, the so-called standards of animals, are also exhibited, or that this should be the norm according to which animals should be judged. I honestly feel that we shall be doing a great deal for the production side if these societies are encouraged by the State to take into account the production side as well. In the case of Frisian cattle, for example, which I want to mention as a good example, there was a time when at the old Rosebank Show a cow from Elsenburg was exhibited which for many years was selected as the best animal at the show. But during the war, when shows could no longer be held, that cow was sent to the abattoirs by the officials at Elsenburg. The reason for that was that this animal had never reproduced, and had never produced any milk, but nevertheless she had been selected as the prize animal at the show year after year. I really feel that since the Deputy Minister has planted this seed, we can develop the matter along these lines and that the show societies, in collaboration with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, can definitely play a much larger part in helping to make farming in South Africa more efficient.

The hon. member for Swellendam made a few unflattering remarks about me in regard to what will happen in the future, and the hon. member even went as far as to think that if I had to do some milking I would milk the bulls. But let me tell the hon. member this. If I consider what happened at the by-election in Swellendam last year, it will not just be a question of milking the wrong cows. I think that constituency will wean itself of that hon. member; because on that occasion, when the hon. member acted as the representative of a rural, agricultural constituency, one would have expected that he would have stated his case in regard to what they were doing for the farmers, on the platform. But every time a meeting was held one saw reports such as “Mr. Oubaas Malan thanked the speaker” or “Mr. Oubaas Malan, M.P., was also on the platform”. So the hon. member’s future is not too rosy in his own constituency.

The hon. member for Prieska strenuously objected to the hon. member for Gardens’s allegedly having said that he had said that the farmers were doing well, and he said that what he had said was that the farmers were not doing too badly. He then made a quotation, but stopped at a certain point, and the point at which he stopped is the very place where the part begins which the hon. member for Gardens wanted him to quote. This is what the hon. member said in column 3751—

This is what the hon. member said. If the hon. member did not say this, surely he must have said the farmers were not prosperous, and this is our entire argument, that the Government members always want to pretend to us that the farmers are so prosperous as a result of their policy. The hon. member said that the United Party were the people who warned all the banks that the farmers were no longer creditworthy; we put this in their mouth and we tell the young boys who want to take up farming: “You cannot take up farming, because you are not going to make a success of it owing to the circumstances.” Let me tell the hon. member this. Not one single United Party member has got up here and spoken about agriculture without being able to substantiate his case with facts. When we quote here, we quote from the report of the Department of Agriculture and from speeches and statements made by leading figures in agriculture outside. When a man like Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers or Mr. De Villiers Loubser of Mr. André du Toit issues a warning about a certain matter, puts forward certain facts and states what the position in agriculture is, are they also doing the same thing? How wrong the hon. member is! The hon. members for Gardens, Transkei, and Walmer, and all of us who have an interest in agriculture, hold meetings. It really is strange that when you hold meetings among the farmers in the rural areas, those people do not get up and tell you that you are talking nonsense, or that you are harming the industry. No, it is for the simple reason that a United Party speaker will not appear on the platform unless he knows his facts. This is what we are doing and this is what the hon. member does not like. He wants us to keep quiet about the circumstances prevailing in agriculture. We may not expose the mistakes made by the Government. We may not state our policy. We may not point out any facts, such as the movement of Whites from the rural areas to the towns. We may not point out to the people that non-Whites are taking the place of the Whites in the rural areas. We may not point out the increase in the burden of debt of the farmers. We may not point out the decrease in the profit margin of the farmers.

According to that hon. member it would just be grist to the mill of organizations such as the Standard Bank and others to say that they may not help the farmers, as the United Party are saying so. But then it is strange that it was in fact this side of the House, and I myself, who pointed out two years ago, when the credit squeeze had just been started, that, if it had not been for the commercial banks and the local dealers, the people who were still helping the farmers, the position would have been much worse. We expressed our gratitude for that. We on this side of the House are the people who are saying to-day, together with many other leaders of agriculture, that the interest burden is heavy and that the people should be assisted. How then can we be causing the agricultural industry damage? Does the hon. member think that, if we are causing damage, the farming community of Prieska would ask any of us to hold a meeting there? No, Sir. Do hon. members know what is happening? If we go to hold a meeting there, one Nationalist farmer after another says: “You know, what you of the United Party are saying is correct.” The hon. member for Prieska knows that when he holds a report-back meeting, they do not quote to him what the Minister said. They quote to him what the United Party said. Then his people tell him that the United Party is right. [Interjections.] He knows that is true. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that in Standerton it is the same.

For whom do they vote?

For whom they vote has nothing to do with the matter. It does not matter to us either. We say we are right in respect of the agricultural industry. I hope we have now disposed of that matter.

I want to submit another plea to the hon. the Minister to-day in regard to certain weaknesses which we regard as serious in Agricultural Technical Services. When I say serious, I do not mean that we are dissatisfied with the service the Department is rendering to-day, despite the fact that it is lacking in numbers. As far as extension services are concerned, we feel that the situation has been brought to the notice of the Government for 10, 15 years now and that the position has not improved in any way. It is an unbearable state of affairs that one has to come to Parliament every year and point out to the Government that this is an obvious shortcoming. The hon. the Minister may only look at his own report, which contains a beautiful map showing where the extension offices, the regional offices, etc., are situated. The situation is such that in the larger part of the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape Province areas are lying fallow to-day on account of the fact that they are not properly covered by extension officers.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister of a personal experience of mine. In October of the year before last I wrote to my extension officer to ask him please to come and survey three works for me. The planning of the farm had been completed. I subsequently received a letter from him in which he stated that my name had been placed on the waiting list. This is 18 months ago now, and that young man has not yet had an opportunity of coming to me. I do not blame him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park makes it his practice from time to time to substantiate his arguments with quotations from the annual reports and so forth of the South African Agricultural Union. Only those parts that suit the hon. member and his Party are quoted. On that the United Party then bases its standpoint. Why does that hon. member not also quote from what Mr. De la Harpe De Villiers said at the opening of the congress of the South African Agricultural Union last year? There he said the following (translation)—

In that spirit organized agriculture is cooperating with the Government, and so all the arguments of that kind fall away.

The hon. member for Gardens, who has just made a long speech on soil conservation, which is a very good subject for discussion, took the strange step of comparing the expenditure of the Department of Defence of more than R200 million with the expenditure on soil conservation of a paltry R2½ million, as he put it.

How much?

R2½ million. This is what you said. I happen to have received the same little pamphlet as that hon. member had. He read a part of it to us without mentioning the source. It is from the South African Journal of Science of May, 1967, in which the following is said in regard to this comparison between Defence and Soil Conservation—

It really is a very strange coincidence that the theme of that hon. members speech and that of this article are the same. While that hon. member says that not enough is being done, I should like to point out to him that proportionately we have made much more progress in soil conservation than the great United States of America. There they have had soil conservation legislation on the Statute Book for 30 years. Proportionately we are nevertheless much further then they are.

The hon. member for South Coast said yesterday that “too little is done too late”. This has been the Opposition’s attitude throughout the past two days. I want to refer the hon. member for South Coast to Vote 16, subhead E, where the enormous amount of R21 million is being asked in connection with the stabilization of the price of maize. Then there is the further amount of R4,600,000 for subsidies in respect of Railway tariffs on maize and maize products. Under subhead D —Fertilizer, the subsidy on fertilizer, in order to keep the price to the farmer as low as possible, is given as R14,350,000. These amounts are not small change. We cannot get away from the fact that the farmers are grateful for that. The larger subsidy in respect of agricultural lime, for example, and the more effective use of agricultural lime in lighter crop soil, such as in parts of the Pretoria District, Bronkhorstspruit, Witbank and so on, have in fact turned uneconomic units into economic ones. The hon. member may have read in the newspaper yesterday that a piece of land in that area changed hands yesterday when a farmer and his two sons bought a farm for Rii million. This is an independent farmer and he did this without any assistance. Can one blame the Government for this?

Did he pay too much for the land?

Yes, but he is not asking the State for assistance, and even less the hon. member for his advice. Under these three subheads alone more than R41 million is being provided for subsidies to the grain farmers. This is for subsidies alone. This is nearly as much as for the entire Department of Transport, and not much less than for the entire Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Sir, do these figures not place the whole matter in respect of the grain industry and the maize industry in perspective? They show to what extent the Government is supporting the maize industry in particular, not only in respect of the declared maize price, but what is of particular importance, in respect of stability and especially price stability. There are economic factors which the Opposition must take into account, and which we in this House, and organized agriculture itself, and also the maize farmers, must face objectively. We can say to the credit of the maize farmers that many of them have already noticed these things themselves, and are now beginning to apply them in practice in their farming operations. The fact of the matter is that too many maize farmers began to put all their eggs in the same basket in the course of the years. Now these are not the eggs to which that hon. member referred. Specialization has perhaps been taken too far in this case, even in the marginal regions, where no plough should ever have been used, but where, as a result of a few favourable seasons, good crops have given rise to a false belief in the maize potential of the marginal regions. Here I am referring specifically to the extensive stock regions bordering on the maize triangle, more particularly in the Transvaal. It is not for the Minister, the Maize Board or the extension officers to convince the maize farmer who farms with nothing else, of the necessity of diversification in his industry. The maize farmer should act objectively and economically, and decide himself where he can diversify his maize farming successfully. One finds maize surpluses all over the world. A handful of American farmers could supply the world with maize if they are not restricted. Europe is also becoming more independent as regards maize. Domestically our demand for maize and maize products is only developing gradually, but it so happens that there is an ever increasing demand for red meat and that the price of beef will probably not easily decrease again. By means of co-operative study groups of maize farmers in conjunction with their farmers’ associations and the departmental extension officers a great deal of practical research work can be done on farms in these areas, to the benefit of the industry. Some of the most stable farming enterprises I know of in the Western Transvaal maize regions, are those in which the stock factor was specifically integrated with the maize industry at an early stage. This greatly reduces the risk factor in the production of maize. But such an integration must be done in a rational way. It must be planned scientifically and not take place in a haphazard way. To me the Western Transvaal maize regions still remain the ideal finishing areas for the adjacent cattle grazing regions of the Bushveld and semi-Bushveld areas. These areas also have ideal potential as fodder production areas. I am now thinking of the tough sorghum varieties such as Babala and Sorghumalmum and even the highly suitable soya beans, which can be used for various purposes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is quite tragic to take a look around just after sunset and to see what is going on here, especially if one realizes that the debate is to be continued tomorrow. In a discussion such as this, hon. members on this side of the House would like to receive some advice. I have now made a summary of the pleas made by members on that side yesterday and the day before. They want the prices of agricultural products to increase, but at the same time they do not want the consumer to pay more. This is what they asked for. Neither do they want this Government to increase taxation. In short, this is a summary of the pleas made by the Opposition. If we reduce everything to truth and reality, we see that the Opposition has asked for an increase in the farmer’s prices on the one hand, but that the consumer should be protected on the other hand. In other words, the Opposition wants subsidized agriculture prices. But in all the discussions on the Agriculture Votes and when the Budget was presented the Opposition said that taxes were too high. Well, how will we ever make the grade in this way? It will be a sad day when this Government has to go, as the hon.’ Opposition suggested to-day. The hon. member for Newton Park also referred here to the hon. member for Prieska. I want to tell him that I also heard the speech made by the hon. member for Prieska at the time. He made a positive contribution by telling the Opposition that they should stop disparaging the men in the rural areas. We were having rains at the time, and he said we should rather get up and express our gratitude for the rain, because we could live again. He also said that as a result of this negative talk the commercial banks had become disinclined to finance the farmers. Now that hon. member says that he said agriculture was doing so well. Is it such a crime to speak the truth? The hon. member for Newton Park said that there were not enough extension officers. I will not argue, because that is true. I said some moments ago that in this Department we have approximately 6,000 officials who have to serve 90,000 farmers. This ratio is among the highest in the world. Not one Opposition member has in this Budget debate referred to the R32 million voted for agricultural technical assistance to agriculture in our country. I say that the Opposition should also sometimes try to make a positive contribution and to look at what these 6,000 men are doing for our agriculture.

Do you mean that I should thank you?

No, I do not want that. Good wine needs no bush. One never gives it a build-up. I just want to say that if you periodically tell us how bad things are. do you not think it would be to the benefit of agriculture to let the young man, the official of the Department, understand now and then that what we have achieved during the past 21 years or more, has been achieved with their help? The first year I was in this Parliament, that same Secretary of Agricultural Technical Services was sitting in that elders’ pew. I asked him then whether research could not be carried out in regard to the cultivation of pineapples at East London. Those people listen to everything that is said here. They sift the grain from the chaff, and what can be practically implemented, they do. He then sent five men to a United Party area to do pineapple research there. To-day there is only one left. Where have they gone? They have gone to the private sector. Hon. members referred to that matter. They went to fertilizer companies or fuel companies. They are no longer in our Department, but they are not lost to agriculture either. Now it is being said that we do not have extension officers. This Department also serves as a training centre for other sectors in our country. Engineers, extension officers, technical people, research people are trained there. They are then eagerly taken up by the private sector again.

We now come to the salary problem. I agree that this is a problem. But these matters are being reviewed. I think that one of the things the United Party might acknowledge now and then, is that these officials have to do their work under very difficult circumstances. I should like to mention one example. We decided to lay out an irrigation area near the J. G. Strydom Dam on the Makatini Flats. This plain is remote, desolate and far from human beings, houses and schools. There is nothing. There were only two extension officers making tests in the bundu with a view to the irrigation that was to be practised later on. I took my hat off to those people. Nobody knows of them. They are doing the work that the Chris Barnards of our country are doing.

I now want to answer the United Party with the ammunition provided by their own people, i.e. the Ixopo Soil Conservation District Committee. It is said that there are not enough extension officers, but if the farmer on his part displays a love for the land, and wants to keep it unspoilt for posterity, he will not say that he will simply let his land erode because there are no extension officers. He will do something of his own accord. Now I want to read to you what United Party people are doing. I say that one does find one out of 100 United Party people who has something in him. This group of farmers organized their area well, and are now distributing this booklet among their members every month. I shall quote from this booklet, so that we can see what the ideas of those people are, and the hon. members on the opposite side would do well to remember this—

They go on to say that the land of a farmer who does not apply conservation practices, should be taken away from him. These people are inspired with this idea, and are not continually looking for excuses; they do not wait three years for someone to come and advise them in connection with soil conservation, as the hon. member said a moment ago. The hon. members opposite are always coming forward with the negative statements that have allegedly been made by agricultural leaders. They have to listen to these people, because they do not have the practical farmers who will admit that sometimes they do make a little profit too. Why should one lie? After all, the practical farmer says—I think that hon. member is himself a farmer who has bought more land recently—that he has made his money out of farming. A practical farmer admits that. I just want to read on about what the United Party farmers of Ixopo tell their children—

The land belongs to the nation, till the dawn of Judgment Day.

Now the nation holds you worthy and you will see, if you are straight and just,

That to rob the soil you hold, son, is forsaking a nation’s trust.

Don’t ask your farm a fortune; true pride ranks higher than gold.

To farm is a way of living, learn it before you grow old.

Now this is the law of the land, son; to take out, you have got to put back.

And you’ll find that your life was full, son, when it is time to shoulder your pack.

This is what the English-speaking farmers of Ixopo tell their children. They do not tell their children that this Government and this Department of Agricultural Technical Services are doing nothing; they say that if one is prepared to do something of one’s own accord, everything will be all right.

Mr. Chairman, I think we must first make a few points clear in this debate on agricultural matters. The members on that side of the House are consistently accusing the United Party speakers of taking a wrong attitude in putting their case. The point we tried to get across to the hon. members on that side of the House is that the agriculture sector of this country was subjected to extraordinary circumstances during the past 15 years. Because there were these extraordinary circumstances, we are now merely asking the Government to take extraordinary measures to counteract the farmers’ problems. I submit that if the farmers were not called upon to face the rise in interest rates and if the seasons had been favourable, there would not have been any trouble in the field of agriculture to-day. The farmers had the unfortunate circumstance of a rise in interest rates coupled with unprecedented droughts over a period of ten years. These factors have contributed to exceptional circumstances in the agricultural sector. That is why we have said so often that the only sensible way of trying to overcome these problems is to assist with the rate of interest. As I stand here, I believe that it is fundamental that this matter must be tackled in this way. I am not one of those who want to make the farmers of South Africa dependent on State-aid. I believe, like those farmers from Natal, referred to by the Deputy Minister, that the farming community should be independent of State-aid and should be able to carry on under their own steam. But where they have been subjected to these extraordinary circumstances, I believe the State can do more than they have done during the past two or three years. I was surprised when! listened to the hon. members on that side of the House. I was particularly surprised when I listened to the member for the constituency where I live, Graaff-Reinet. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet made a speech in this House which in no way reflected the position of the farmers in his constituency. I am not reflecting on the hon. member; I know him well, and I was also a personal friend of the late member for Graaff-Reinet, Mr. A. N. Steyn. I know the late Mr. Steyn walked about with a very thick file with requests from farmers who applied for assistance so that they could be put back on their feet. When we say that the position of the farmer of South Africa is difficult, we do not say that it is difficult because the Government has failed in its duty; we realize that the drought and the economic situation has contributed to this situation, but we say—and I say it emphatically—that the Government has not taken the measures which we believe it should have taken to put these people back on their feet after they have been subjected to factors which no farmer can be expected to have anticipated. That is our quarrel with the Government.

I want to raise one particular point under this Vote. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me when I say that we have outstanding research stations in South Africa. By that I mean our agricultural colleges where agricultural research is done, the various research stations, etc. They are making a great success of their work. We have information which is as good as that of any other country in the world in respect of animal feeding, animal breeding, veld management and, in fact, every aspect of proper farm management. However, one of the problems I see in the agricultural sector of South Africa is that this knowledge is not being imparted to or being absorbed by our farming community.

Whence the successes achieved in the field of agriculture?

Is the hon. member suggesting that on every farm in the Republic to-day the farming practice is as good as it could be? Does he not believe that there is plenty of room for improvement? As he drives through the country and he looks at the stock, is he satisfied that those are the kind of stock which should be grazing on that land? Is he satisfied that every flock of sheep is as good as it could be? Is he satisfied that the milk production of every cow is what it could be? I submit to that hon. member that there is plenty of room for improvement. I submit further to the hon. member that extension services can play a great part in improving the situation.

Does the hon. member deny that the situation has improved considerably under the present Government?

I say that the farmers of South Africa have done a wonderful job.

And the Government?

There is plenty of room for improvement in the Government’s contribution to the agricultural sector. The point that I want to make is that although we have the extension services, although we have the knowledge, there seems to be a certain stubbornness on the part of the farmers to accept this information and apply the better practices on their farms. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that more use should be made of having farms in the various areas of the country where the different forms of knowledge which have been ascertained, the different forms of farm-management, the different farming practices which the different research stations have evolved, can be applied in practice. It is my experience that where a farmer sees something taking place on a farm under normal practical conditions, not under the conditions which prevail at a research station or at an agricultural college, in other words, a farm where the very same circumstances prevail as on the farm on which he farms, he is far more orepared to accept these principles. I should like to see the Government introduce a scheme whereby they acquire farms in the various farming regions of this country where they apply the farming practice in a practical way, either by taking on a farmer or acquiring a farm with a manager to carry these principles into effect. I am quite convinced that farms which are being farmed on that basis, are going to be a great incentive to the farmers to try to apply the same principles on their own properties. I believe that in this way we shall see much of the information which we get from our research stations and colleges employed far more readily on the farms. I just want to quote from the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I agree with the hon. member for Gardens that we must congratulate the Department on this report. I think it is a valuable document and it has been very well prepared. I want to quote from page 7 where they talk about study groups. These study groups are groups of people who get together and employ an economist to advise them and then they do research on their own. I quote—

In other words, where the farmers were involved in an experiment of their own under practical farming conditions they were far more ready to accept the recommendations of the departmental officials. I do not think that it is a good thing that the farmers do not accept readily the advice from the officials, but I think we must accept that there is a certain stubbornness on their part in doing so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer expressed a thought here which I want to support wholeheartedly. I do not want to support it merely because it is a new idea, but because it is something which is being practiced already. This is the idea that agricultural education should be given in the various regions of our country on specific farms where such education is being intensively applied under the guidance of officials of the Department. This system is probably the best method of educating the farmers in the various regions.

I should like to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. This matter is more a local one concerning my constituency, namely the position prevailing at the Sandvet Irrigation Scheme. There, as is the case at various other Government schemes, we find that various Departments are involved in the scheme. The departments involved are the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and of Water Affairs. That means there are three departments involved in this scheme. I want to advance a plea with the hon. the Minister now that there should be greater co-ordination among the various departments. I want to suggest that an inter-departmental committee be appointed, particularly in respect of that scheme. I suggest this because we are experiencing difficulties in that regard. I think it will be a good thing if the agricultural credit committees, under which those parts of the scheme fall, should take the lead. I want to suggest that the magistrate should be appointed chairman of this committee nd that the extension officer and the superintendent should also have representation on such inter-departmental committee. In this way we shall be better able to solve the problems which crop up at this scheme from time to time.