I should like just to finish off the discussion of yesterday on these large surpluses we have had every year since 1948. I think it will be far better fiscal management if in framing his Budget, the hon. the Minister determines what income figure he wants to budget for Revenue, and then to state his requirements over and above Revenue in the framework of the Budget. In that way we can have a debate on the economic aspects of the Budget, taking into account the economic climate of the country at the time. That type of debate will be far more meaningful than when discussing a Budget which we all know, has little relationship to fact. I do not expect the hon. the Minister to be spot on in balancing his Budget—not even I could do that— because there are economic factors arising from time to time affecting his income and expenditure. But when we have before us a Budget which says what it means, we could at least grasp its intention.

The hon. the Minister accused me of misleading the public by the figures I gave of Australia’s national income. Well, if any blame attaches to me for this then I can only say that I am the innocent victim of the ex-Minister of Economic Affairs, Mr. Haak. Last year the Government sent a mission over to Australia under the chairmanship of Mr. Haak. A report was duly issued. On page 5 under the heading “Economic Structure— Gross national income” a comparison is made between the gross national incomes of the two countries. I got my figures from there.

They did not use the word “real” income?

That was the responsibility of the gentleman who produced this report, because one thing we do accept without checking is official reports issued by Government departments. All I did was to take the figures out of an official report and use them.

There is another matter where there is room for a great deal of improvement. We were very glad to hear from the hon. the Minister on Monday that he proposed certain increases for public servants. However, we are seriously disturbed at the manner in which the announcement was made. I want to go back for a moment to 1968. In the Budget that year the hon. the Minister announced certain improvements in vacation savings bonuses, in overtime payments and in subsistence allowances, and an adjustment in the contribution towards pension funds and for medical aid. This involved an amount of R25 million and was dealt with by the hon. the Minister in his Budget. Then later on in the year, outside the Budget, he announced a further R82 million of increases in salaries and allowances for public servants. In the Budget of 1969 he again dealt with the position of public servants and provided for improved remuneration for certain categories of public servants to the extent of R15 million, plus R3.5 million for housing. In this Budget, the Budget of 1970, the Minister made no provision for any increase in remuneration to public servants. Yet on Monday, less than two weeks since his Budget speech, he told us that he was going to provide R69 million for public servants in a full year. We have this ludicrous situation that in less than two weeks after the introduction of the hon. the Minister’s Budget, we have another item of expenditure of the order of R17 million which has to be met from this year’s Budget.

Sir, as I understand it and as most people, I think, understand it, the Budget purports to be an estimate of income and expenditure for the ensuing fiscal year. The hon. the Minister said very much the same thing in his Budget speech; he said—

Sir, where was his programme of revenue and expenditure for the year if ten days later he can introduce another item of expenditure of R17 million? Surely the time has come when we have to have some measure of accuracy in a Budget; where a Budget has to have some relationship to the facts. All the hon. the Minister told us in his Budget speech was that he had set up an investigation into public service salaries. He does not tell us whether the investigation has been completed but he tells us that he is now going to provide R69 million extra in a full year. But we have had a lot of these cases, Sir. We have had a lot of allowances and increases announced for public servants in the different sectors, not in the Budget but either before the Budget or after the Budget. We had the case of Langlaagte where the hon. the Minister of Transport announced increases amounting to R60 million for railway servants, two months prior to the Budget. We had the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs delivering his Budget speech in this House and then immediately going across to the Other Place, a place which has no interest in or jurisdiction over finance whatsoever, where he announced increases amounting to an additional R18 million, and now we have the hon. the Minister coming here with an additional R69 million.

Sir, the Franzsen Commission, referred to in the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech, said:

Nobody queries this statement; we all agree with it, but a Budget is an instrument of economic policy not only for the hon. the Minister; it is an instrument of economic policy for the private sector as well. Businessmen look at the Budget as a very important document to help them to decide on the guide lines which they will follow in the following year because business is carried on within the context of the Budget. The least that the businessman expects from the Government is a Budget which is a statement of Government intention, because it is on a statement of Government intention that business, industry and commerce plan their future. We have already told the hon. the Minister that one of our gravest problems in this country to-day is the continuous uncertainty which is being created by the Government. This is just another example of this uncertainty. We believe that it is time the Government got back to normal sound budgeting, to the practice of providing in the Budget for the estimated expenditure for the year so that we can deal with it and so that the public will have knowledge of it.

Sir, in his Budget speech the hon. the Minister hinted at a possible departure from the existing labour pattern and I said at the time that I thought it was quite wrong that he should mention this matter and leave it hanging in midair. On Monday the hon. the Minister went a great deal further. He said that we not only had to develop the homelands and the border industries, but that it was also necessary that the white areas of South Africa should be developed to their fullest possible extent, a sentiment with which we heartily agree. The hon. the Minister went on to say that he was fully aware of and understood the problems of the businessman and of the industrialist but he expected something in return. He expected that the businessman and the industrialist should know what Government policy was and help the Government in the furtherance of such a policy. He said that within the scope of Government policy he expected the private sector to assist in the development of the homelands and of border industries. He would not tell the businessman that he must not endeavour to make more profit or to extend his business. On the other hand, he expected that the businessman should not tell the Government not to develop its policies. He said the objectives of the Government and of private enterprise were not incompatible and then he made the most important statement in his speech. He said that if industry would help to develop the homelands and the border areas, they would find that the Government would not be unwilling to help them towards the maximum development of the white areas. I think that summarizes the hon. the Minister’s statement. He also said that he believed there should be no difficulty in finding common ground between the Government and the industrialist so that the objectives of private enterprise and of the Government could be met.

Now we are dealing here, Sir, with a matter of great magnitude and we believe the Minister must be much more specific. He must have the courage to tell the country exactly what he has in mind. He has got to tell the country what his plans are and I believe he must tell them of those plans in some detail. I believe he must tell the country how he proposes to go about the implementation of the somewhat vague suggestions he made in his speech on Monday. I think other Ministers are involved. I think the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. the Minister of Planning must tell us a little more about the agency basis in regard to white interests in the homelands, a basis in regard to which we have never been able to get a single fact. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development seems to regard this as some great mystery that the public should not know about. In reply to a question the other day he said he would not tell us. So that if an industrialist wants to establish himself in the homelands through an agency contract, he has to become a 007 and in the dark of night he has to go to see the Minister so that he can get the information. If this is not the case, why not tell the public? If you want the industrialist to help in the homelands, surely you must tell him on what basis.

And what is more important, I understand that the so-called question of an agency basis has already been discarded in some cases and what is being offered to the industrialist to-day is a 25-year contract within the homelands. The Government will build a factory and let it to him at 4 per cent on the money involved. He will have a guarantee that he can operate his factory or business, as the case may be, for 25 years. Thereafter, provided there is a Bantu or Bantus who are in a position to buy the business, he must be prepared to negotiate a sale. That is my information, but that is not agency at all; it is a licence to trade for 25 years, which is a very different thing.

Sir, you see, the Minister’s speech indicates a major change in thinking and a move in a completely new direction. It is very vital to the country as a whole that we should know more about it, unless of course the hon. the Minister is merely flying a kite and waiting to see what reaction there is going to be from industry and commerce to the remarks he made in his speech on Monday. Has he definite proposals in mind, or is he just flying a kite? I do not think the hon. Minister should be coy about this issue. He should put his cards on the table and exercise the wisdom of Solomon and let us know what is happening. Sir, you know Solomon had 1,000 wives ana I am sure he did not get them by being coy! People are beginning to think that it is time for clear-cut policies to be given to the country so that everybody will be fully aware of the road the hon. the Minister proposes to take in this issue. All that has happened up to now is that the hon. the Minister has raised a great number of questions in the minds of the public and particularly in the business and industrial sectors, and I think it is only right and proper, and the hon. the Minister owes it to the country that he should now provide the answers to these questions.

In dealing with tax, I now want to deal with specific items. The first one is again the question of the loan levy which is being paid by elderly people. Day after day my letterbox, and I am sure the letterboxes of most members in this House, contains letters from people of 65 years of age up to 85 who complain that they will never see the contribution which they are making towards the loan levy. We have raised this question before, but we have never had an answer from the hon. the Minister as to why he does not exclude these elderly people from the loan levy. We know that it only applies to taxpayers who pay a tax of R100 or more which takes care of an income of plus-minus R2,000 per year or more. 10 per cent of R100 can mean a lot to a person. The hon. the Minister, and I want to give him full credit for this, has been generous in relation to taxation of the over-sixties. I want to ask him to exercise the same generosity in regard to this loan levy for elderly people. Perhaps the hon. the Minister does not want the rich to escape from the loan levy irrespective of their age. That is no reason why the hon. the Minister cannot put a limit in regard to income where people over the age of say 65, will not be required to pay the loan levy. This is a very sore point with many of what the hon. the Minister called the elderly citizens and I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to it.

The second item I want to raise is the married woman’s income, particularly that of the pensioner. Hon. members know that the earned income of the married woman herself to-day is given relief up to an extent of R500 provided that the joint income is not over R8,000. In the beginning of the year, after this provision was made, pensions received by married women were treated on the same basis. In point of fact, the income tax form which is sent out for provisional tax payment provides for that. It says that it includes pensions. Then apparently, somebody in the Receiver of Revenue’s office decided that the law was not being applied in terms of the Act, which I think is correct. So, re-assessments have been made and now people are required to pay tax on the husband’s income and any pension that a woman may have. This I think is correct in law; an unfortunate mistake has been made. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter. The amount involved must obviously be very small. Not very many women to-day are in receipt of pensions; it is the exception and not the rule. Some women have worked for many years; otherwise they would not be in receipt of a pension. For years they never got the benefit of the allowance which working women are getting to-day. The law has only been on our Statute Book for four or five years at the most. For the rest of the years of their working life, they paid their tax in the normal way. Surely, some consideration should be given to these good people and it will not cost the hon. the Minister very much, but it will do away with a lot of hardship.

Another matter about which we are having constant representations and which I know is also a difficult matter, is where a pensioner goes out to work and then he is taxed on his pension plus his salary. I know the reason has always been given that a pension should be taxable because the pension contribution is a deduction for taxation purposes. There is merit in this, but I think it is creating a lot of hardship. I also think we have a peculiar problem in South Africa and we all know of this problem. It is that we have to encourage people to work and we have to encourage the pensioner to work. A pensioner is one of the most valuable employees in South Africa. They are the trained people we are losing. Pensioner after persioner writes to us and says “I am not going to work, because as soon as I work not only is my pension taxed, but my salary is taxed and when I take into account the incremental rate after joining my salary to my pension there is not going to be an awful lot left to me.” I will agree with the hon. the Minister that this may be a departure from normal taxation principles, but I think that in the interests of the economy of South Africa and the building up of South Africa, with the problems we have, it can be regarded in the same light as tax-free bonds and deposits with building societies. It is to achieve the objective of assisting the economy in South Africa.

In his Budget speech the hon. the Minister referred to the sales tax and he mentioned a figure of R113 million for the year. I wonder if he will be good enough to give us a few more details on that in regard to two points. In terms of the Gazette of the 14th August the receipts from sales tax are given as R94 million. We know, however, that there was a carry-over into the next quarter and that the figure for the quarter is R26.8 million. Together the two figures will amount to something like R120 million and not R113 million. Of course, there may be some amount in the first quarter’s figures which rightly apply to the 1970-’71 fiscal year.

I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister what the savings were, and I use the word advisedly, on behalf of the taxpayer as a result of the concessions that the hon. the Minister made in regard to the sales tax some time during the year.

Another matter I want to raise is the question of the investment allowance. We welcome the introduction of this investment allowance, but we hope it will also apply to the leaseback of buildings and to the leasing of plant and machinery. A lot of premises are erected to-day on the lease-back basis and a great deal of plant and equipment in factories, which is something the hon. the Minister wants to stimulate, are the result of direct leasing. We hope that this will apply. In his speech the hon. the Minister said that this allowance will be in respect of machinery and plant brought into use after the 12th August and new buildings or additions commenced after that date. Then he went on to say that the allowance would apply to machinery and buildings brought into use up to 30th June, 1973. I hope the hon. the Minister does not mean this. I hope he does not mean that the allowance is only going to be in respect of buildings brought into use before the 30th June, 1973. A lot of buildings which are planned now will not even be ready by June, 1973. I hope he will go back to the wording of the old 1962 Act which dealt with the erection of a building. In this respect I hope the hon. the Minister will take notice of the judgment which we have had where erection was defined as “from the state of the foundations upwards”. If you have simply dug the trenches for the foundations you have not started to erect your building yet. If you carry that to a logical conclusion in terms of the judgment, if you put up a building with three basements, you have not started building until you start building above ground. I think the hon. the Minister should not in the new Act this year use the word “erections” but “from commencement of building”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that since I have only ten minutes at my disposal I shall not be able to reply to all the arguments raised by the hon. member for Parktown in his half-hour. I shall, however, merely confine myself to a few arguments raised by the hon. member, and I shall leave it to other hon. members on this side to deal with other aspects.

Towards the end of his speech the hon. member again asked for a large number of concessions, some of which were deserving, but others less deserving. I may tell the hon. member for Parktown that some of the considerations he submitted to the hon. the Minister were of course submitted to the hon. the Minister by this side of the House a long time ago. Now, of course, when the hon. the Minister grants these requests, the hon. member will again say, as he did in the Budget debate the other day, that this is a good United Party Budget. This, of course, is not the case. Let me refer to one of the hon. member’s requests, i.e. the question of concessions to the aged in respect of income tax. This matter has most decidedly been brought to the notice of the hon. the Minister by this side of the House. However, may I suggest an improvement to the hon. member’s proposals? The older a person is, the longer ago he retired, and consequently his savings have depreciated by a larger percentage. Surely that goes without saying. The improvement I therefore want to suggest is that the older a person is, the larger the amount exempted from income tax should be. In other words, if a person retired 20 years ago, his savings have become worth far less than those of a person who retired five years ago. Accordingly, the longer ago a person retired, the larger the amount of his income exempted from tax should be. This is about the only thing on which I can agree with the hon. member for Parktown, but I leave the matter at that.

The Opposition is continually complaining that we are overtaxing, and deliberately overtaxing, the people, as the hon. member for Parktown also said a few moments ago. The hon. member again mentioned the figure of R1,400 million with which the people had allegedly been overtaxed over the past 22 years. Of course, this figure is not correct, but I leave it at that. The hon. member also said, and I am using his actual words, which I wrote down, “Our objection is that when the hon. the Minister budgets for a surplus of R2.8 million and then comes to the House and tells us that he has a surplus of R113 million, as was the case this year, we do not think that the public is being told the correct facts. If the hon. the Minister wants to budget for his Loan Account he must not say to the public that he is going to have a surplus of R2.8 million, but he must say, ‘I am budgeting for a surplus of R113 million, of which I propose to put so much in the Loan Account.’ That is honest, good budgeting.” All through the ages it has of course, always been easy, to be wise after the event. This is exactly what the hon. member tried to do on this occasion. We have before us an estimate of the revenue to be received during the year ending 31st March, 1971. On pages six and seven the expected or the estimated revenue is indicated precisely. May I now ask the hon. member, or other hon. members on the other side who will follow him, whether there is one of these items which they consider to be inaccurate, and whether they want the amounts to be larger or smaller?

Then I immediately want to warn the hon. members on the other side to be very careful. When the hon. the Minister estimated the sales duty at R100 million last year, hon. members on that side suggested that that estimate would be very far out. They said it would be anything between R200 million and R300 million. An Opposition member in the Other Place even went as far as to bet the hon. the Minister that it would be R200 million. He was brave enough to offer the Minister a farm in Adderley Street if it were not R200 million. When they are so far out in respect of one single item, how dare they criticize this estimate of revenue? If the hon. the Minister had taken notice of the estimates of hon. members on the other side and had decreased his revenue accordingly, he would not have had a surplus of R113 million this year, but a very large deficit on his Revenue Account. This estimate of revenue about which the hon. member for Parktown had so much to say is in reality not so far off the mark. As a matter of fact, I went to the trouble of looking up the figures in respect of the past five years. Over those five years the hon. the Minister had underestimated by only R117.2 million, i.e. 1.5 per cent. Over a period of five years the estimate of his revenue for the subsequent year was only 1.5 per cent too low. I would say that this was excellent, correct estimating, on which the hon. the Minister and his very efficient staff should be heartily congratulated.

Sir, it remains a fact that we as taxpayers are all shareholders in the undertaking of the State. Just as a shareholder in a business undertaking expects to receive dividends for the money he has invested therein, we as taxpayers expect to receive dividends from the State undertaking in the form of services rendered to us by the State. If we look at the estimates of expenditure from the Revenue Account. we see all the services received by the taxpayer from the State tabulated, just as a shareholder in a business undertaking receives his dividends.

I now want to make the statement that, just as a business undertaking does not pay out all its profits but ploughs back a large part thereof so that there will be a reserve which may be used for capital purposes, it is very sound financing by the Minister of Finance not to distribute his entire surplus in the form of dividends or services, but to apply a large part thereof on the Capital Account. This is very sound financing. I have looked at the income and dividends of five companies, as reflected in the Stock Exchange Handbook. Two of these companies undertake industrial financing, one is a liquor company, one a food company and the other a clothing company. I found that the proportion of. their income which they plough back into their capital account varies from 42 per cent to 53 per cent. I do not want to suggest that the State should plough back such a high percentage into its Capital Account, but I just want to indicate that it is sound financing to plough back at least part of the surplus so that it may he used on the Capital Account. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Paarl seems to be obsessed with the thought that we on this side of the House might be stealing some of the thunder that he believes rightly belongs on his side. He mentioned particularly that the hon. member for Parktown had asked for some concessions which, he said, had already been put to the hon. the Minister by members of his own side. I want to assure the hon. member that, from this side of the House, the thunder is very audible indeed. We do not have to steal it. We have it. I think my colleague has already proved this. Following on what the hon. member for Paarl has said, we can put the two arguments, namely that of the hon. member for Parktown and his own, to the test. Could he perhaps just tell us one simple thing. Why does the hon. the Minister in his budgeting so often make solemn sounds yet always end up with a spanking surplus?

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister this afternoon to a manifestation in our commercial scene that might well warrant the close attention of his Department and particularly the scrutiny of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. I refer to the emergence of business organizations that have been formed ostensibly to consolidate and liquidate debts for private individuals and to receive repayments and fees from such debtors by way of instalments. One such organization operating here in the Cape has caused a number of people considerable consternation. Before I go further I want to say that the hon. the Minister of Police in reply to a question from my colleague, the hon. member for Simonstown. last week stated that the results of a police investigation into the affairs of one particular organization had been placed in the hands of the Attorney-General. I want to make it clear that I have no intention of anticipating what the Attorney-General might decide. nor would it be proper to deal with the merits of any proceedings that might be instituted by him. But I feel that certain broad principles have emerged which warrant fairly close attention. In raising this matter I think we are all particularly indebted to one of our local newspapers here in Cape Town, the Cape Argus, for raising some important aspects relating to this matter.

Why do you not publish it in the Sunday Times’!

We are not churlish in that way. This newspaper has for some time now been running an innovation called “Argus Action” which provides a type of ombudsman-like service for its readers and the public at large. Through it readers and others are able to canvass problems they experience with the business world and officialdom. For some considerable time now people in debt, who have experienced difficulties in meeting their creditors, have been wooed by organizations that have offered to help them solve their financial problems by paying their debts and accepting repayment on an instalment basis. I think we have ail seen examples of the type of advertisements that have appeared in the Press of both languages from time to time. I think it is important here to remember that arrangements can be made with creditors in several ways, namely personally, through the processes of the courts or through attorneys, to name but a few. In the latter two ways the position of all parties is protected by legal or professional usages.

Order! What has this to do with the Vote?

Mr. Chairman, this matter concerns the Registrar of Financial Institutions. I am drawing the hon. the Minister’s attention to something that should well be considered by the Registrar of Financial Institutions.

The hon. member may proceed.

In the latter two ways the position of all parties is protected by legal or professional usages. It appears that several institutions which are now offering this financial service to debtors are doing so on a fairly big scale. Judging by the contents of the files which I have seen, many people have asked for this type of service. It is also clear that such organizations that offer this service, also sorely lack the supervision that one would think should be essential in handling and distributing what amounts to trust funds. There have been complaints for instance that in consequence of agreements people have paid fairly substantial sums to this type of institution. These payments have been in consequence of arrangements whereby creditors either were to be paid immediately in full or were to receive a distribution at regular intervals. In some cases, apparently, this has not been done and the debtors have found that only a small fraction of what they have paid in has eventually reached their creditors. Obviously some supervision of these credit financing institutions has become desirable, even essential. It seems, for instance, that fees charged in some cases are out of all proportion to the debts or work involved or the arrangements generally.

Then there is another aspect of the matter to which I should like to refer. Institutions of this nature operate in positions of trust in handling their clients’ funds. Professional people who handle trust moneys are backed not only by professional codes, but also by professional sureties. In other businesses it is not uncommon for fidelity bonds to be required, where people handle money in trust. Here, however, as far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no supervision of any nature. Overall we have the position that people who, in desperate straits, are at their most vulnerable, are handing over their financial affairs to institutions that offer them the least protection. I feel that the scale on which these institutions are apparently operating to-day and the number of complaints that have been logged up, justify the close attention of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kensington has now made his debut in the economic and financial debate. I must say that his performance was a tragic succession of that to which we are accustomed. The story he has told here is to my mind just as doubtful as his reports in the Sunday Times of people who have Land Bank loans. I honestly could not make out much of what he was saying. I think the hon. the Minister, too, was having great difficulty to understand him, and he will probably have to read that member’s Hansard before he will be able to answer him. To me these things sounded virtually like bits of gossip. However, I do not want to say anything more in this regard.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Parktown, who at least discussed the economy. I like replying to him. The hon. member for Parktown brought in a charge against the hon. the Minister. He said he did not mind if the Minister was not “spot on” with his Budget, but if the hon. the Minister budgeted for R5 million, he must have R5 million. Then he also said that if the hon. the Minister budgeted for a surplus and then transferred part of that surplus to the Loan Account, he should inform the people of that, otherwise he would not be behaving perfectly openly towards the people in that respect.

Furthermore the hon. member for Parktown also said that the year 1970 would be known as the Budget Year of the Loan Account He did not agree with surpluses being transferred from Revenue Account to Loan Account. I just want to tell that hon. member that there are only four basic methods of meeting the deficit on Loan Account. I do not want to refer now to the funds which are at the disposal of the Public Debt Commissioners. The first method which can be employed is the creation of bank credit. Another method is by means of foreign loans; the next is borrowing on the domestic market; and yet another method is that of increased taxation for the purpose of transferring such taxes to the Loan Account as well. This procedure is nothing new. As a matter of fact, it has been the policy of this side of the House since 1954.

Since that year the concept of a surplus is not simply a surplus of so much on Revenue Account and of so much on Loan Account. The concept that has come into being in developed countries is one of a surplus on the country’s Cash Account—Loan as well as Revenue Account. In 1954 Minister Havenga said he would proceed to this method of providing funds from the Revenue Account, and that it had not been possible to do so prior to that year as South Africa’s economy had not been developed sufficiently enough. At that time he had to depend largely on obtaining loans in overseas countries. But as a result of the industrial development of South Africa, the country was in a position to adopt this method in 1954, and he could accept the concept of a surplus on both accounts. Since that time it has always been the Government’s policy to do so.

Therefore, the transfer from Revenue Account to Loan Account was determined by two factors, factors which served as a guide for determining the amount of money to be transferred; the first factor is the amount of money freely available in the country for saving, and the second is the pressure of inflation in the country. As soon as those two factors had been determined, one had a clue of what had to be done. It is clear that inflation is exercising strong pressure in the economy of our country at present, an inflation of 4 per cent. To borrow money is not such an easy matter any longer on account of the high growth rate throughout the world, which has brought about a tremendous scarcity of capital. It has now become absolutely necessary for the Government to break the pressure of inflation. With that object in mind, surely it is a wise and logical policy to use already collected taxes for financing the Loan Account instead of borrowing money for that purpose, which is an inflationary measure. Of course, if one uses a foreign loan to buy goods overseas for importation, that is not inflationary. No-one can foresee what the position will be at the end of a Budget year. Not all of us are Madam Roses, like the hon. member for Hillbrow, who can predict what will happen in our country.

Last year the hon. the Minister budgeted for a surplus of R2.8 million. At the time he could not foresee that we would have such an enormous growth as we did have. Profits increased tremendously and there was so much activity in the field of revenue from stamp duties that from these sources alone virtually R80 million more was received in revenue. With this new Budget the Minister is doing the very thing about which the hon. member for Parktown complained, i.e. to budget for a surplus of R113 million. From that he has taken R94 million and transferred it to Loan Account for the following year—precisely what the hon. member asked for.

The hon. member also complained about the amount set aside for civil servants’ salaries. But surely this is what the United Party has asked for, and even in his speech on the Budget the hon. member for Parktown complained that the Government had done nothing for civil servants. What the hon. member should not forget is that these increased salaries will only be paid as from 1st January of next year. Therefore, a very small portion of the expenditure involved will fall in this Budget year, with the result that it will not be affected to any marked extent. [Time expired.]

Nothing the hon. member for Pietersburg has said will make me alter my view that the policy of the Government to raise surpluses by way of taxation does not do anything to reduce the inflationary tendency in this country. This method is inflationary, not deflationary, because it has the effect of increasing the pressure on incomes, leading in turn to a stronger pressure for higher incomes.

The matter I should like to raise this afternoon falls within the influence of the hon. the Minister of Finance through his Registrar of Financial Institutions, i.e. the threat to which the community has recently been exposed when the banks indicated that they were going to close for business on Saturdays. Fortunately this did not eventualize and the inconvenience the public could have been put to, did not come about, but the fact that this threat was made seriously by the banks is something which should be taken notice of because it involves an important principle. Let me say right at the outset that I have the highest regard for banking institutions in this country. I believe they follow the highest traditions of banking and are financially as sound as bells. They offer sophisticated, modern and efficient banking services and they have played in the past, they are playing in the present and I am sure they will continue to play in the future, a very important part in the economic development of the country.

The principle, however, which I wish to bring under examination is whether it is in the public interest that the banks should be free, as they are and do, to act in concert, in collaboration with each other, in deciding such matters as whether they are going to be open to business on Saturdays, and fixing the charges which they make for the collection of cheques, the charges on bills of exchange and so forth. I am aware, Sir, that if the banks were to close on Saturdays this House would have to agree to an amendment to the Bills of Exchange Act, which at present requires them to give service on Saturdays. But I do not think that that is the crux of the matter. The principle of this aspect of banking conduct goes much further. Although there is ample evidence that the business community and the public would have been inconvenienced by having banking services withdrawn on Saturdays—I have been advised, for instance, that one large commercial undertaking would have incurred extra charges on bank overdraft interest to the extent of R10,100 per month if they had not been able to bank their Friday takings on Saturday—I still feel that you cannot say ipso facto that individual banks should not be allowed to decide whether they will work a five-day week. I believe in the right of an individual enterprise to decide within reason what its working hours shall be.

What I do object to is that, and what I bring under examination is whether it is in the public interest that, the banks in this regard should have acted in concert, and I ask whether that way of acting on their behalf is not really a monopolistic action. I think the same thing applies in regard to the manner in which they fix and raise their charges for various operations and all the time represent a solid front which cannot be broken. Sir, I realize that competition is not always a pleasant thing in so far as the people and the concerns who have to meet it are concerned, but competition is a very necessary element in a free enterprise society; it is the factor that insures that goods and services are offered at reasonably low prices, that they are offered in the way the public wants them and at the time the public wants them. It is the spur to innovation and to progress, and in the absence of competition you take away the protection that the public and the business community have that they are getting the service at the right price. The effectiveness of competition in this respect, in regard to banks closing on Saturdays, was clearly illustrated when the building societies said that they would not close on Saturdays and the banks had to decide that they also could not close.

Sir, I am aware that the Government is very conscious of the value of competition. It has illustrated that by the way it administers the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act. It also illustrated this when not so long ago it banned retail price maintenance. But I do think this aspect of banking practice should also be taken into consideration. I realize that there are certain aspects of banking operations where competition cannot be allowed full rein. I realize that there are occasions when the Reserve Bank likes to see uniform interest rates applied. I realize that the Reserve Bank’s limitation as to credit ceilings has the effect of also limiting competition between the banks. I realize that the Banking Act itself, which lays down certain ratios of assets as against liabilities, also limits competition and introduces uniformity. But in regard to the other aspects of banking operations, the charges they make and the services they give, there is no reason that I can see why free competition should not only be allowed but insisted upon, and I recommend that the hon. the Minister gives this matter his serious consideration.

We have now listened to three speakers of the United Party, and this reminds me very much of the joke I heard about the old lady. Three parsons had already been called, and all three of them had doctors’ degrees, but in her view the one preached as badly as the other. When the third parson left and a new one had to be called, she said she thought this time they had better call a dentist. I am afraid this is more or less the way it is this afternoon. This is more or less what we had from these three speakers this afternoon, and especially from the last two speakers. The hon. member for Constantia stated that the loan levy which is now being imposed is inflationary, but surely that is not so? Where does the hon. member get that from? If the hon. member had known a little more about finance and studied the subject a little more closely, he would know that that is not so. After all, it withdraws money from the hands of the public so that they will no longer chase goods. Because what is inflation? Inflation is when too much money is chasing too few goods. The hon. member should know this if he wants to discuss finance, and when this levy is introduced, that money is taken from the hands of the public.

Now I want to ask the hon. member for Parktown the following. One of our major problems in South Africa is to combat inflation. Should this Government combat inflation or not? What is his policy?

Yes.

Very well, we must combat inflation, but now the hon. member holds it against the Minister that there are still moneys in the Stabilization Fund which have not been used. He wants that money to have been used now. [Interjections.] Did the hon. member not say that? Surely the hon. member suggested very clearly that the Government was overtaxing the public and that more use should be made of loan capital, as well as of these funds. He also said this last year and the year before that, and the hon. member for Constantia said this in this House year after year, and his supporters asked why that money was not being used. Sir, it was specifically sterilized, if I may put it that way, to combat inflation in South Africa. If the Government had not done so, inflation would not have been 4.1 percent this year, but would have been far worse, and that hon. members ought to know this.

However, the hon. member made another statement here yesterday. He said the hon. the Minister was not being honest with the country— “he is not quite frank with the country”.

Order! This means something quite different than that the hon. the Minister is not honest, otherwise I would have called the hon. member to order.

Then I accept it like that. If he used it in the sense of the Afrikaans word “openhartig”, because “frank” has two meanings. I think the hon. the Minister was as frank with the country as he could possibly have been when discussing surpluses. Here on page 30 the hon. the Minister put it very clearly. He was as frank with the public and the country outside as one could possibly be. He stated very clearly what the surplus was, and what more can you say than that you are going to. transfer the surplus to the Loan Account? I think the hon. member was only spoiling a speech which could have been a good speech by using certain words that he did.

The hon. member also referred to loan capital. I want to ask the hon. member for Park-town whether the hon. the Minister should have granted more concessions if we had not transferred this surplus. If more concessions had been granted, surely it would have been inflationary? Or would it not have been inflationary? After all, this was the first task the hon. the Minister set. He said that his first task was to protect this country against inflation. If we had not transferred those surpluses, he apparently felt the financing should have come out of loan capital. Where should that loan capital have come from? The hon. member knows that we cannot borrow any more domestically, than we are doing at the present moment. What is the position with foreign capital? We know that Western Europe has in fact been the main seat of the capital market in recent years. In the past five years an amount of 10,000 million dollars was made available by those countries, and it was made available mainly to America. What happened in the past number of years, and especially during the past twelve months? The interest rate was so high that no capital was available. There is no capital in Europe for loan purposes. The last dollar loan was made in July of this year, and it was issued at 9½ per cent. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Park-town whether we should borrow long-term capital at 9½ per cent or more? It is said that they can lend no more. The banks of London and of Zurich say that if that R10 million were to be lent again, it would not be at 91 per cent, but at 10 per cent. We, too, always borrowed the Swiss franc. After years of agitation a company succeeded in borrowing R10 million for 15 years at 7 percent. It was not so easy to get it.

If there is one thing the hon. member for Parktown should do, it is to draw up another budget for us and to tell us exactly what taxes he will not impose and what taxes should have been abolished, and how he would finance it. His eye was too much on the provincial elections. It is no use making wild statements here. I agree with certain of the matters he mentioned here. I have no criticism on certain of the points he mentioned, but then, since he has objections to these surpluses, he must tell us now what he wants to do with them. The hon. the Minister made it very clear that it is as a result of the services provided by this Government, which is a good government, and the confidence the overseas world has in the rand that our economy has grown and expanded to such an extent. The businessmen have made enormous profits; so much profit that this increased revenue was earned. As a result of the better salaries that were paid, as much as R13 million could be received over and above the amount for which the hon. the Minister had budgeted.

We want to thank the hon. the Minister for the excellent Budget he introduced here. We are also very glad that it has been financed in such a way that we shall be able to combat inflation and, moreover, that we have used our surpluses in order not to offload everything onto the people of tomorrow, and that it was seen to that the people of to-day also carried its share of the burden in that respect. We are glad that it was not necessary for us simply to rely on loan capital, so that we would have had to burden our children with unnecessary amounts.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown is very hurt about the fact that I told him the other day that he should not be a Jeremiah. Therefore it is understandable that his first words were in defence of himself. Interestingly enough, the hon. member himself is the person who has furnished proof of the fact that I was correct in my accusation, in that he sought to prove that he had not been a Jeremiah by referring back to his first speech, which he made in the no-confidence debate, and not to the speech which he made here in the Budget debate. In other words, I think I am still quite correct in telling my hon. friend that, as far as his speech in the Budget debate is concerned, I was perfectly entitled to warn him not to adopt that attitude. I do not want to accuse him.

The hon. member said that there were two points on which I reprimanded him, first before the election and again on this occasion, and that he would like more clarity about those points. The first important point is the matter which my hon. friends also raised here, namely the accusation against the State that it underestimated its revenue, which was therefore far more than it had anticipated; and, secondly, that it used that underestimated revenue, which is now more than we anticipated, to finance its Loan Account without stipulating it beforehand in its calculations and that in so doing it had misled the nation. As far as the first matter is concerned, i.e. determining exactly in advance what the revenue of a state is going to be, I would be pleased if my hon. friends could show me which state in the world is able, in the changing times in which we are living, to estimate more than a year in advance—our Budget is drawn up in November of the previous year already—exactly what its revenue will be for the next financial year.

This has been happening for 20 years already.

Yes, exactly. It has been happening for more than 20 years already. It has happened for 22 years while we have been in power. It happened when the United Party was in power. My friend is quite correct in that respect. It has been happening for 20, 25, 30 years. This shows one that it is a pattern of South African budgets, as of all budgets, that one cannot determine in advance exactly, to within a few thousand or a few million rands, what your revenue for the following year will be.

Can one not calculate one’s expenditure?

We are not concerned with expenditure now; we are talking about revenue. Because I want to keep abreast of affairs, I sometimes also look at the annual reports of companies in this country. Time and again I am astonished when the chairman of the company delivers his annual address and announces his profits for the preceding year as compared with his expectations of what the profits for that year would have been. This is true even in respect of a company. An ordinary business company, whether it be a factory, shop or bank, is not even able to determine a year in advance in its small organization what its net income for the following year will be.

No, man.

Oh yes. Every day I see in the financial publications how much larger the income is than what companies expected the previous year. One can more or less determine in the course of the year what the final result will be, if one sees what the income is. But under the present system, where we have fluctuations and variations in our economic life, no one can determine months before the financial year, when one makes one’s calculations, precisely what one’s revenue is going to be. These hon. friends—of course they will say that they are not the Government—said that the sales duty would yield R200 million to R300 million. Look how wrong their estimates were in a simple matter. I gave them the figures. Hon members said that the sales duty for the past year would not be R100 million. They said it would be R200 million or R300 million. Hon. members were 200/300 per cent out in a simple matter.

Why did you reduce it in February? [Interjections.]

Do not feel hurt now. The hon. member can rise and put a question to me if he wants to.

May I?

Yes, certainly.

If the Minister was so accurate, why did he have to reduce the sales tax in February? To place us in a false light?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the question.

I shall come back to that.

Answer!

The hon. member must just remind me of it. I shall come back to the sales duty, because there is a question about it. Hon. members must please not try to make me digress. I am dealing with this one matter now. I am only saying here now that hon. members accused me of having miscalculated the sales duty and that they said it would be twice or thrice as much. This shows to what extent they themselves misjudged the situation. This is a fact. It is on record. Now I want to ask hon. members something. They have made a prediction every year. If I had to draw up a budget according to their predictions of the economic future of South Africa, I wonder how far I would always be out, because every year they predict decreasing profits, declining economic prosperity and a deteriorating economy. They can never see ahead. No one can foresee precisely how the economy of a country will fare. We do not know it here; they do not know it in America or in Europe. I challenge any of my friends on the other side in all amity: Go to Germany, America, France or any country in Western Europe which they care to choose, and ask those people whether they can say a year in advance what the economic position of their country will be.

They will be able to guess more accurately than you think.

They will guess, but they do not know what can happen. Thank Heaven, in our case the economy has always fared better than we expected. Thank Heaven, we have had surpluses and not losses. I think my hon. friends on the other side ought to get up and thank the Government. [Interjections.] Yes. We are not joking now. Hon. members want to laugh it away as a joke. They should thank the Government for controlling the economy and the finances of the country in such a way that it ends a financial year with a surplus instead of a deficit. I think this is something to be grateful for. It is something for which hon. members should thank us.

Constant overtaxation.

Oom Jan, you should make another speech in English.

I want to conclude this matter by saying that it is absolutely impossible to determine the revenue of the State accurately in advance. Because we have a growing economy in South Africa, it is understandable that we have surpluses and not deficits. Then my hon. friend said that it was wrong to use that money for my Loan Account. I do not understand that reasoning. Surely, if I have a surplus on my Revenue Account, it is very good economy and very good business to use that surplus in order to reduce my debts? If I were a farmer and I wanted to build a dam, and I borrowed the money to build that dam, it would surely be very good policy, very good business, if I used the profits from my farming to repay the debt? [Interjections.] My hon. friends are easily amused. If one has made a profit on one’s farming, it is excellent policy and good business to use it to reduce and pay off one’s debts. If a business undertaking wants to erect a building for itself, a factory or a business building, and it has to borrow the money or take out a mortgage on that building, it is obviously good business, if it is making profits—the more profit it makes, the better—to use those profits for paying off the loans and reducing the debt and the interest on the debt. If we had not followed that policy, South Africa would have been paying R80 million more in interest to-day. I want to ask the hon. member for Transkei, who is laughing so heartily, to thank the Government for saving South Africa R80 million in interest every year by means of this wise policy.

My hon. friend asked a perfectly fair question. He said that not all that money was used for the Loan Account. I should like to discuss the matter with him, but we cannot discuss small figures across the floor of this House. However, I can say to him that the figure of R1,400 million which he mentioned is almost correct.

†It is almost correct in total. Actually the income of the Government exceeded the assessed expenditure by about R900 million over the 22 years. These amounts, totalling R960 million, have all been invested again in Loan Account by this Government, except for an amount of less than R100 million, which is still in our Exchequer Account. The hon. member mentioned a figure of R471 million. I do not quite agree with that figure. As the hon. member says, we have “tucked away” R371 million in the Stabilization Account.

In the State’s mattress?

Yes, in the State’s mattress. The hon. member puts it so well in his farmer’s way.

†It must be noted, however, that this R371 million was not derived from taxation, but from loans, which have to be repaid. This amount is not the result of high taxes. It is made up of loans and it has to be repaid. Hon. members must therefore please not tell the people that we are overtaxing them to the extent of R1,400 million.

But they are compulsory loans, are they not?

I am coming back to the question of compulsory loans. Every form of taxation is compulsory. Has the hon. member ever heard of any taxation, except in some way indirect taxation, which is not compulsory?

But you have just said that this amount is not the result of taxation, but that it is made up of loans. Now I am saying that they are compulsory loans.

Oh yes, they are compulsory loans. That is completely correct. What a wonderful discovery by the hon. member! They are compulsory loans but we have to pay them back sooner or later. It is not taxation.

But if you do not need the money, why bother with these loans?

If the hon. member goes to his bank and borrows money, does he tax that bank or steal from it? He borrows from the bank and then pays the money back to the bank in due course. To be serious, this amount of R371 million is mostly being used in our External Procurements Fund to buy stocks which we need in times of emergency. Some of that money is also being used in the External Loan Fund for help to other countries. Of the whole amount that has been referred to, I think about R75 million is left in the Exchequer Account. I think that that more or less explains the whole position.

May I ask a question? Did the hon. the Minister say that R900 million was the difference between actual revenue and estimated expenditure and not between actual revenue and actual expenditure?

No, it is the difference between estimated revenue and actual revenue. Actual revenue exceeded estimated revenue by about R900 million. That is more or less the figure.

Estimated revenue also allowed for a surplus?

An amount of roughly R500 million was intentionally used from revenue in order to finance Loan Account. There was a deliberate increase of taxation to provide a higher income for the purpose my hon. friend mentioned, namely of financing the Loan Account. The other R900 million was an unintentional unexpected surplus on Revenue Account.

The total was therefore R1,400 million, as we said.

Yes, the total was more or less R1,400 million. I cannot work out all the detailed figures here now, but I can let the hon. member have the detailed figures. It will take some time to explain every figure in detail.

The hon. member for Parktown was also very sad about the Australian case. I quite understand what happened to him. It does sometimes happen that one takes the figures in the accounts of gross national income and expenditure and that one interprets them as being “real” income, etc. I quite understand that that does happen. I think that one should be more careful in this regard. Every time I see that a country has this or that income, I try to find out whether it is real income because otherwise one might get the wrong picture. Let us take a country such as Brazil which has an inflationary rate of 30 per cent. If one were to get a 35 per cent increase in the national product of Brazil, it could really mean nothing because the rate of inflation also is nearly 35 per cent. You therefore always have to reduce that figure by the rate of inflation. I understand what the hon. member meant but I just want to say to him that he must be more careful next time when he uses such figures.

*The hon. member also attacked me here in connection with the salary increases for the public servants. I could have acted quite differently and, as a Government is entitled to do, increased the salaries of public servants or announced such an increase at some other time in the course of the year. I could have done that, but I did not do so, because I think I have a duty towards Parliament. I told hon. members in the Budget speech already that as a result of what had happened in the Railways, we were investigating the position of public servants. I said that I would make an announcement later. If hon. members had listened, they would have heard me say that the work of the public servants would not pass unnoticed. Hon. members could easily have deduced from that that an increase was coming. Anybody who can understand anything must have deduced from that that an increase was coming. If the hon. member had gone slightly further, he could easily have deduced for himself that it would be of that order. I could not announce it at that juncture, and I had the honesty to say in my reply to the Budget debate here that it would be the amount mentioned. I think I have done my duty towards Parliament. It could not be included earlier in the Budget. I again want to tell the hon. member that estimates of expenditure are prepared long before the time. They cannot be prepared in their entirety the day before I deliver my speech. That is impossible. I think I have informed the nation. This is what the nation needs, and I think I kept the promise I had made.

The hon. member went on to discuss the taxes, in regard to which he wanted to make certain proposals.

†The hon. member mentioned taxation allowances and taxes for pensioners and old people. I do not think that I should reply to these points now. The fact of the matter is that the Franzsen Commission is still investigating some of these matters. I do not know what their recommendations are going to be nor which matters they are investigating. I think that some of these matters are being investigated and that we shall have a report in this regard within the next month or two. I think that it would be better if I did not make any reply and if we rather waited until we have the Franzsen Commission’s report on these matters. As the hon. member will remember, we also did so in connection with the question of income tax last year.

The hon. member for Kensington mentioned something about financial institutions. I am awfully sorry but I could not hear what the hon. member said. I shall read his Hansard and see whether what he said has any connection with my department. As far as I could understand what he said, it has nothing to do with my department because the Registrar of Financial Institutions deals with matters connected with the protection of the interests of depositors, policy holders, etc. In any case, I will read through the hon. member’s Hansard and see whether I can deal with it. As far as I remember, I have nothing to do with it.

The hon. member for Constantia talked about the loan levy. He made a very strange statement. According to him, loan levies are inflationary. That is what his statement amounted to. If I understood him correctly, he said taxation was inflationary. If it is true that direct taxation or loan levies are inflationary, what tools do I as poor Minister of Finance then have to fight inflation? One of the first lessons a person learns in the science of finance which is being taught, accepted and practised everywhere, is that one of the main methods of restraining an inflation is to drain away some of the liquidity in the economy of the purchasing power of the people. If taxation is inflationary, I really do not know what we should do. Then we will actually have no means of fighting inflation.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is it correct that the German Minister of Finance has adopted the very strategy that the hon. member for Constantia mentioned? Have they not reduced taxation in an effort to curtail inflation?

Mr. Chairman, I think I know the financial system in Germany fairly well. Every time I go to Germany, I find taxes are higher than they were during my previous visit, particularly indirect taxation, taxation in the form of levies for instance, on the articles people buy. It may be possible that the direct taxation is low, but at the same time indirect taxation is increased.

What about inflation?

Inflation in Germany is as high as it ever was despite this policy which the hon. member mentioned.

And what about sales taxation?

Sales taxes increase prices only once. It is not like inflation, where you have an annual increase of a certain percentage. The same happens in the case of our sales tax. It is not an annual recurring increase in taxes. Inflation is something that grows annually. The sales tax is only imposed once and then it is finished. I really cannot understand the argument. I would be very happy if the hon. gentleman could tell me what methods remain to a government to fight inflation if it cannot use taxes for this purpose. Of course, a government can go too far with the tax system. If people were to pay 50 per cent of their earnings in tax, it would be something different. But as long as a government remains in the vicinity where we are at the present moment, taxation cannot be regarded as a form of strenthening the forces of inflation. It is rather one of the methods of restraining and fighting inflation. I cannot see any other way in which this could bed one fiscally.

The hon. member for Parktown also asked me about the statement which I made in connection with labour the other day. I am very happy to see that the hon. member regards this statement as one of importance. I do not say it was a very important statement. I think everybody knows or should know that this Government desires to foster industrial growth in this country. When I say this country, I do not only refer to the white part of the country, but to the country as a whole. One of the difficulties we have in South Africa to-day is that only certain parts of the country are being industrially developed, but not the country as a whole. Particularly those parts where the labour is, are not being developed as they should be developed. I only said that if industrialists were to help in developing the homelands, whether that development takes place inside the homeland or on the borders of the homeland for the benefit of the homeland, we shall be in a much better position and more willing to help them inthe development of industry which still remains and has to remain in the white areas of our country. I think it is logical. The time has arrived that the industrialists of this country and the Government should come together to discuss this matter. I should like to have an indication in this connection from the industrialists.

Is it your intention to offer a quid pro quo to an industrialist —in other words, if he establishes an industry in the reserves or on the borders, then you will give him …

I am not talking of individual businessmen; you cannot do it on that basis; I cannot tell industrialist X or Y or Z that if he does this I shall do that for him. I am talking about the industry in general. If we could succeed in our objective of creating more employment opportunities in the reserves or on the borders thereof for the non-Whites living in the reserves and in that way increase industrial production in those areas, something of the fear which we have about the overcrowding of the white homeland by black people would be alleviated. I can now talk only in general terms. Let me put it again: If industrialists as a whole, and not an industrialist as an individual, are prepared to help the Government to develop these areas industrially thereby creating employment opportunities for black workers …

On the agency basis?

I do not say that. Once they have demonstrated their willingness, we can start a dialogue about ways and means.

Who are “they”?

Industrialists. Or does the hon. gentleman expect me to discuss it with him?

Why do you say that? It is uncalled for.

We want to discuss it with industrialists.

Not individually?

No, but with industry as an organization, organized industry.

Why do you not then accept the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission?

The report of that commission is now about 15 years old whereas we have reached an entirely new stage to-day.

And yet you are coming back to the Tomlinson Commission’s report now.

We have completely new problems. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I can only come to the conclusion that the hon. gentlemen opposite do not want this co-operation between industry and the Government. [Interjections.]

We want you to be realistic.

The reaction of most newspapers so far has been very favourable. [Interjections.] Let me say again: We are prepared to discuss this matter with organized industry if they indicate that they accept the right of the Government to develop this country on the basis of our broad political views—not party politics but our broad political and economical views to the extent that we say that industry should be decentralized and developed within the reserves or on their borders.

Do you have something like an elective employees’ taxation in mind for these discussions?

I leave everything open now. In other words, I will not say that is the way. I do not commit myself to that—not at all. I think there are other ways by which we as a Government could give more help to industrialists to go to those areas. I think it is possible by various means to induce industrialists to go to these areas; we shall help them to do so. If they want to co-operate with us on a business basis, I think we can come together to find a means of solving this problem, a problem which should really not exist between the Government and industrialists. I do not think I can go into details at this stage; it is a matter which we should like to discuss with industrialists as an organized body.

The last point the hon. member made was I think about the sales tax. Originally we estimated that we would have an income from sales tax of R97.5 million. For the last year we estimated the income from that source at R97.5 million. That was an estimate for 11 months. That is so because sales tax is paid monthly, after the end of a month. If we had received payment on this basis for 12 months we would have received an amount in the vicinity of R106.6 million. In order to make the collection of this tax easier, it was in the course of the year decided to change the basis of payment on South African produced articles from a monthly to a quarterly basis. That means that for the quarter which ended at the 31st March this year, no payment was received in that quarter as the payment was only made in April/May. In the quarter ended June, 1970, the income from this source was in the vicinity of R26.4 million. Of that amount R18.9 proved to be in respect of the previous quarter. If these figures are added together, we shall find that we received altogether R113.6 million in respect of the full year, not in the year, but in respect of the year. As against this our original estimate was R106.6 million.

What was the effect of the reduction in February?

About R8 million for a full year. It could not therefore have made much difference to the estimate. Mr. Chairman, I think I have replied to all the questions put to me.

In one or two respects the reply of the hon. the Minister has not been as satisfactory as it could have been. The hon. the Minister criticized the hon. member for Parktown with regard to his estimate of revenue and said it was impossible to estimate exactly the amount of revenue anticipated. That we can concede. Nobody is expecting of the Minister to estimate an exact figure. The point of the hon. member for Parktown was that the gap was far too wide, the gap between estimated revenue and the revenue actually collected. He said this gap was far too big and had been far too big over the years. The Minister said that no business even could say exactly what its turnover was going to be and, hence, exactly what its profit was going to be. If the Minister were to examine the records of leading companies in this country, he would find that most of them are on a budgetary system of accounts and long before a year starts they obtain from their sales organizations throughout the country an indication of what turnover can be anticipated. The various sectors are asked to provide for an increase or explain why there should be a reduction, and before the new year starts there is a budgeted quarterly account available. I am quite sure that the Minister knows that that is common practice. If an industry finds that there are any factors which are going to reduce turnover during the current year, then that is taken into account, and as a result most companies forecast their profits and their turnover with a far greater degree of accuracy than this Government.

Sir, the Minister then referred to the question of labour. He asked industry to get in touch with him with a view to discussing the question of labour. When we tried to peg the Minister down, he said that he wanted to deal with industry in general terms. Sir, the position is this: We have this difficulty. We accept the Minister’s good faith but on the other hand we have had the statement of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development the other day. When we talked about the agency basis, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that he would not tell us the terms and that he had no intention of telling us the terms. Sir, business organizations have a responsibility towards their shareholders; they have a responsibility towards their creditors, and if they have long-term borrowed capital they have a responsibility towards their bond or debenture holders. Businessmen cannot venture into an industrial undertaking without being able to give a fairly clear assessment as to where they are going. The factors which determine the siting of a business are not only labour. They are determined by the availability of labour, water, power, the infrastructure, services and so forth. Labour may in some cases be the dominating factor, but in many cases it is not the dominating factor. Any industrialist who starts a particular industry has to take into account to what extent technical information is readily available. If he goes on an agency basis into a homeland, in conformity with Government policy, he has to make sure to what extent he can rely on the necessary infrastructure. Col. 2599:

Line 7: For “an elective”, read “a selective”.

In the homelands there is virtually no infrastructure—I think the hon. the Minister will accept that—so the industrialist has to find out to what extent he can get people to attend to his machines—such as electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, and so forth. He wants to know whether, if he can get them to go to the homelands, he can get their wives and children into the homelands, and whether schooling facilities and the infrastructure which goes with an industry are available there.

We have the same problem near Durban where the Government has started a border industry at Hammarsdale. Already they are experiencing difficulty at Hammarsdale in bringing white labour to their factories. A considerable amount of progress has been made with the establishment of these factories, but what happens to-day at Hammarsdale is that all the factories are brightly lit at night; there are police guards and dogs there. On one side of the line a new modern Bantu township is being laid out, but all the white workers have to travel 25 to 30 miles to and from work every day. When they get tired of the long journey and leave the company, the company has difficulty in getting replacements, except at a higher cost.

Sir, despite what the Minister says, those are factors which have to be taken into account. For example, the Minister knows that the tyre industry is experiencing difficulties. They are not making sufficient tyres for the country. The Minister will know that a concern like Dunlops many years ago established a factory at Durban with Indian labour. They had certain difficulties with that Indian labour; they closed the factory down and decided to train Bantu labour. I think for nearly nine months of the year the factory did not operate while they were training Bantu labour. Today the whole of the works part of the factory in Durban is staffed by Bantu labour. This is against Government policy. The Government wants them to go to their homelands. When a firm like Dunlops extend their factory and go to the homelands, to Zululand or to the Transkei, there is a certain amount of technical know-how and technical expertise which has been developed over the years and which necessitates not only transferring the factory and the machinery but all the technicians who have acquired that expertise over the years. When you say to a technician who has been with the company for 25 or 30 years and who is in his early fifties, that you want him to go and live at Umtata or Richard’s Bay or Empangeni, he is going to say, “I am sorry, I would sooner take my pension now than dig up my roots and go elsewhere.”

Sir, those are real problems, and despite the Minister’s wish that industry should go to the homelands on an agency basis, industry wants to know what all the facts are, what infrastructure is available, what power will be available, what tax benefits will be granted by the Government and for how long they will get these tax benefits. Sir, this is not politics at all. Industrialists discuss these matters. They are not only concerned with building up their expertise, building up their turnover, building up their profits, and providing for growth over the years. They are concerned with following the Minister’s injunction that they should try to build up an export markets, to build up an export market by improving their standard of efficiency, and to improve their standard of efficiency by lowering costs. They lower their costs by the extent to which they bring in modern machinery, and modem machinery is of no use in the bush, because if something goes wrong you have to send for a man 50 or 60 miles away to come up with his equipment. If there is no hotel to accommodate him you have to provide accommodation for him in the bush. Then the cost of that expertise is a good deal higher than in town, where you can just pick up a telephone and get a man to come from next door. I suggest that as long as the Minister talks in general terms, he will get polite acceptance from industrialists who do not want to bump their heads against the Government, but if the Minister wants action he must be explicit. He must not be explicit himself only but the Minister of Planning must also be specific and the Minister of Bantu Administration must be very clear indeed, because industrialists realize that you only get efficiency as people become more expert and they only become more expert by virtue of length of service. What we need to-day more than anything else is expertise based on years of experience, based on the know-how which is acquired by doing the job. Even hon. members of this House acquire expertise. A new member is very green indeed. Even the Minister, who came into this House at the same time as I did, has acquired a lot of expert knowledge over the years. In every walk of life it is essential, if you are going to build up an organization, to have it fixed in some place. If you are going to alter the whole pattern of the country, in other words if you are going to take the power, the light and all the services to the labour, which is the dominating factor, then you have to re-hash the whole of the planning of this country, because existing industries which are in the white homelands and which contemplate expansion will have to make a choice whether to dismantle their factories or write off their factories and go to the homelands, or whether they will consolidate the portion they have and take further development to the homelands. Those are very real problems that this country has to face and until such time as the Minister gives a clear indication as to what the Government means he will get no finality in this matter, and the position will remain vague and indefinite. [Time expired.]

In reply to the hon. member for Pinetown, I fully realize the difficulties in connection with these border area industries. I have been dealing with these things too long not to realize the difficulties. But this is not the time and the place to-day to discuss all these difficulties. My proposal simply was, and still is, that Government and industry should get together and should as reasonable beings discuss these problems to see what actually the difficulties are, but they must display on their part a willingness also to help the Government, otherwise it is no use talking about these things. They must display on their part a desire to be helpful to the Government in developing these areas. If they do that, we can discuss the problems with one another and then I think it will be possible for us to find solutions to all these problems and to many more problems than the hon. member has mentioned, but we cannot do that across the floor of the House.

The last point the hon. member made was in regard to the surpluses. He says in business it is the practice that from time to time a board reviews the whole position, if I understood him correctly, and they can make henges to their programmes. That is true, but it is not possible in the case of the Government. We have to budget once a year, and if in the middle of the year I find that my income is growing faster than I expected, what can I do? I asked this House three or four years ago to give me the right, which the Minister of Finance has in Germany, in between sessions if he finds that he is getting too much money, to decrease taxes. If he finds that he is in a very strong inflationary situation he can increase taxes within certain limits. That is the practice now in Germany and in other countries. But the House, and those hon. members there, refused to give me that right. If I did have that right I would have been in a better position to control the income of the Government.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 8.— “Provincial Administrations”, R362,653,000:

Mr. Chairman, once again we have before us a request for moneys to be granted to the provincial administrations under four different subheadings, if we take the sub-heading “Salaries” into account. They are the Normal Allowances, the Subsidy on Expenditure and the Extra-Statutory Payments. Year after year there have been complaints about the system being unsatisfactory. I am not going to quote at length, but I have two examples of budgets from the Cape Province. The one goes back as far as 1966 and there the then Administrator of the Cape Province said the following:

Two years later he used similar language when he referred to the urgency of this issue.

After years and years of promises the Cabinet announced in the State President’s speech at the beginning of this year that we would get a White Paper setting out the Government’s reaction to the Schumann and Borckenhagen reports. Despite that promise and despite the fact that the hon. the Minister of Transport promised yesterday in this House that we were going to get the White Paper, we now have to vote for another year on an ad hoc basis. This ad hoc basis is accepted by all the provinces and by the Government as being unsatisfactory. The Schumann and Borckenhagen reports have been in the hands of the Government for a considerable time. The Government has announced that they will be laid upon the Table his Session. Surely, for the Government’s White Paper to be of value, we should have had it before debating this particular Vote. It should have been available so that in considering this Vote and in considering the money which we are being asked to vote now, we could have known what the long term proposals of this Government are.

The result of withholding this report is that rumours start spreading. In the Budget debate there was a proposal by the hon. member for Vryheid that the provincial councils should have their budgets placed before this House for approval so that this House would in fact deal with the budgets of the provinces. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this was inspired speculation. I do not know if he remembers the speech of the hon. member for Vryheid, but what I ask of the hon. the Minister is firstly, an explanation of why we cannot have the White Paper, and secondly but more important, that he still the rumours which are spreading. I ask the hon. Minister to give a categorical assurance that that White Paper will not indicate that it is the Government’s intention to restrict or to place any other diminution on the rights of the provinces of South Africa. In other words, to diminish the rights of the provinces in regard to their powers of taxation. We must have it clear whether it is the Government’s intention to diminish the rights of the provinces in regard to taxation. This is a basic issue. There are other rumours spreading. There are rumours that the reason the Government is not announcing its attitude is because its intention is that the Cape Province will benefit considerably by the proposed changes and that the Transvaal will pay heavily in order to make that possible. These are rumours and I do not say that there is any truth in them. The hon. the Minister is the Minister of Finance and I am asking him now to give the categorical assurance that he does not intend to diminish the taxing power of the provinces and that he does not intend to introduce any system which is going to benefit unfairly one province to the detriment of other provinces. These are the stories that are going around. I believe that the hon. the Minister will do the country a favour if he lays that ghost now, or if he tells us openly that these things are in fact intended.

We are asked to vote money again here, as I have said, on an ad hoc and a completely unsatisfactory basis. Again in the Budget debate the hon. member for Vryheid—and I regret that he is not here, because I gave him warning that I intended to deal with this matter—made the statement that Natal was unfairly privileged. These were his words: “Dan vind ons dat Natal wat verreweg, relatief gesproke, die grootste bydrae uit die Begroting van hierdie Regering kry, die Regering kritiseer in stede daarvan dat hulle dankie sê.”. Firstly, this is not true. It is not true that Natal, relatively speaking, gets far more than its share out of this Budget. If we look at the extra-statutory payments we see that Natal with over 2½ million non-Whites gets R3.6 million more than received last year, namely R10 million extra-statutory, which is what they wanted and which was agreed upon. The Cape Province, however, gets an additional R14 million, giving them R47.4 million against Natal’s R10.1 million and the Transvaal’s R34.2 million. The figures disprove the statement that Natal is over-favoured by these payments. The hon. the Minister will probably say that Natal does not need more.

I do not have time to deal with each of the allegations but the hon. member for Vryheid made three completely untrue allegations against the Natal Provincial Administration, namely in regard to schools, which I challenge him to prove, in regard to education and in regard to the subdivision of land. I want to put it on record that the ex-Administrator of Natal, a present Deputy Minister of this Government, who is unfortunately ill—and our sympathy goes to him and his wife in his illness—put it on record that Natal was the best administered province in South Africa. It stands on record that the Administrator himself acknowledged that the Provincial Administration of Natal under a United Party administration is the best administered in South Africa. If Natal does not need more money, as I speculate the hon. the Minister will say in his reply it is because Natal is being properly administered. If there are any provinces that ought to be called to book by this House it is two of the other provinces, for which we are asked to vote money. The Transvaal is the worst example of waste and shocking administration in the history of government of South Africa. The wastage of money by the Transvaal Administration is a shocking disgrace in the record of government and we are being asked to vote more money here for an administration which is wasting millions.

Where?

On the Johannesburg General Hospital, to start with. This hospital was originally planned to cost R4 million, then R10 million, then R11 million and year after year this goes on [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply briefly to the allegations made by the hon. member. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to say a great deal about it, but I think it is nevertheless necessary for me to refute what was said by the hon. member as regards, as he called it, the “promise” made by the hon. the Minister of Finance two years ago. I quote from Hansard (1968) column 5416, Vol. 23, where the hon. the Minister said the following in reply to a question by the hon. member for Green Point—

What was being discussed then, was the making available of the preliminary reports of the Borckenhagen Commission. The hon. the Minister went on to say—

It is stated here quite clearly—

Surely, the Minister said so most clearly and advisedly and he emphasized the fact that he did not want to make any promises in respect of this matter. It is a fact that all of us would have liked to have greater clarity on the financial relations between the Central Government, the Provinces and the local authorities. But I just want to remind the hon. member and the Opposition that this matter has not become more complicated during the past few years or even 22 years. I have said so in this House on a previous occasion—and I want to emphasize this—that at the time when the late Minister Hofmeyr was the Minister of Finance we had, inter alia, a report from the Corbett Commission, a report which was studied by the Government and which could not be accepted. At that time it was emphasized by Mr. Werth, as the mouthpiece of the Opposition, that it was impossible for these matters, to be tackled in a way which would make it necessary for more amendments to be effected to the Act. He pointed out that since 1913 amendments had to be effected to the Act on no less than 13 occasions and that it became apparent that these amendments had not in any way solved the problems.

It was subsequently stated by this Government through the hon. the Minister of Finance that this matter would receive attention so that a permanently satisfactory solution could as far as it was possible be found. As I have already indicated, we were told by the hon. the Minister of Finance three years ago in the course of a speech he was making in reply to a question by the hon. member for Green Point, that it was necessary for a thorough study to be made of this entire matter before the drafting of a White Paper could be commenced with.

What about the State President’s statement on page 5 of this Session’s Minutes of Proceedings?

Sir, the hon. member wants to know from me what statement has been made by the State President on this matter? As far as I can remember, it was announced by the State President that it was hoped that this report would be made available in the course of this Session.

Precisely.

This is an irrefutable fact, and I concede it readily. But the hon. member should know by now in which way the United Municipal Executive functions and that there is mutual consultation with the Provinces. Surely, I think all of us agree as far as this is concerned. We would not like to see a report published which is unfair towards or do an injustice to one or all of the Provinces. The proof of such a possibility lies in this very fact that the hon. member for Durban (Point) has now risen to put the requirements of a province such as Natal above those of a province such as the Transvaal. He also made the impolite statement to the effect that the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal was wasting money. I want to deny this most strongly. I want to tell the hon. member that if he thinks he is entitled to make this kind of allegation, it will probably he possible for other hon. members to make the same kind of allegation against other provinces. I want to have nothing to do with this, because I believe that all the provincial authorities are trying their best to provide the services they have been asked to provide. I did not rise in defence of the province of the Transvaal, but when one observes the infra-structures that have been established there, the Central Government and all of us can only say to the Transvaal Provincial authorities: “Well done. We have no qualms in giving you this money, because we know the money will be well spent in a proper way”. This does not only apply to the Transvaal. This applies to the three other provinces as well. The fact that increased subsidies are now being paid, goes to show that we are highly appreciative of the work carried out by the provincial authorities.

I want to come back for a moment to the question of the final submission of this report. Hon. members opposite ought to know this, but perhaps I should bring it to their notice once again, that the United Municipal Executive comprises people who are representatives of town councils and who are elected on an ad hoc basis as well. They are elected from year to year. The United Municipal Executive meets only twice a year, except when the Executive Committee has to meet in order to deal with most urgent matters. They do not have any executive powers. The United Municipal Executive has to consult its provincial organizations at all times. It is impossible for the United Municipal Executive to pass a resolution on behalf of the Transvaal which has been submitted to it by the Government. Such a resolution has to be referred to the Transvaal Municipal Association which, in turn, is responsible to the various local authorities falling under it. Allow me to quote an example of this kind of consultation. When the Transvaal Municipal Association, for example, has to consult its members, it means that the interests of the larger town councils as well as those of the smaller town councils become involved. Those interests then have to be weighed up against one another and all the interested parties have to be afforded an opportunity to express their points of view. This has been done in this case as well. This has also been done in the case of the reports of the Borckenhagen Commission.

I now want to refute a statement made either by the hon. member for Durban (Point) or the hon. member for Green Point last year. The interim reports of the Borckenhagen Commission were made available on each occasion after they had been published in the form of interim reports. These reports were open to inspection by the United Municipal Executive. It is therefore not a matter of something being forced upon them out of the blue. These people were afforded an opportunity beforehand to submit evidence to the Borckenhagen Commission. They had ample time to submit evidence through their representatives as well as the institutes on all the subsidiary aspects in respect of which evidence had to be obtained. From the point of view of the provinces and the local authorities, it goes without saying that if so much time is spent in the thorough preparation of a matter, the body which is responsible in the last instance for the implementation of the recommendations through its officials and experts, will be afforded ample opportunity to go into that matter properly.

I want to repeat: Through the years, since 1913, this matter has received attention on an ad hoc basis. Under the old United Party government attempts were made to find a solution for this difficult problem.

But there are also constitutional aspects which have to be taken into consideration. It is not only financial aspects that are involved. There are, for example, standing agreements as regards health services which have to be revised completely on a statutory basis. Statutory amendments will have to be effected. This is a most complicated process which will have to be dealt with. All the consequences will have to be faced. For that reason, even if it is true that it has been announced that this White Paper was to have been Tabled this year, and that these reports were to have been dealt with this year, I want to say that I welcome it most gladly that this was done before a thorough study of the matter had been made and as close an approach as possible had been made to a permanent solution to this delicate problem.

Far too much has been said about rumours that are going around. I was a member of the United Municipal Executive myself. Let me say immediately that I heard about those rumours six or seven years ago when I was a member of that Executive. The rumours were heard extensively. Every time a rumour was spread, it was done for the purpose of pointing a finger at the Central Government in the last instance. As regards this matter, the Central Government acted in a most responsible manner. I should like to express the hope that a solution will be found in the near future, but it will have to be a solution which will satisfy not only the Central Government, but which should also meet with the approval and the satisfaction of the provincial authorities. In the last instance the solution should also satisfy that level of government which is doing such a great deal in the administration of our country and which receives such a small reward for it, namely the local authorities, so that even they will find that the matter has been solved to their satisfaction.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Witbank tried to find excuses for the delay in publication of the White Paper by saying that a hope is not a promise. I am certain that anybody as responsible as the hon. the Minister of Finance would not have said that he had hoped to table a White Paper in 1968 unless he had reason to expect that he would be able to do so. This was repeated again in 1969. We have now had the same hope expressed in the address of the State President at the opening of Parliament at the beginning of this Session. It is not an unnecessarily hasty request that this matter should be cleared up. As the hon. the Minister and hon. members know, this ad hoc system of dealing with the provinces has been followed since 1956 when the formula was changed and a new ad hoc system was introduced. Having served on the Executive Committee of a province for a short while, I want to say that if I have one unhappy recollection, it is trying to plan when there is no certainty about the finances for the coming years.

The Administrators of the provinces are being placed in exactly that position by this Government and will continue to be placed in that position as long as there is no finality about the financing of the provinces. In order to start their thinking, I think the provinces are entitled to know whether it is correct that the hon. the Minister has stated, and I am informed that he has made a statement to this effect, that he is opposed to powers of direct taxation being retained by the Provincial Administrations and that in future they will have to look for their revenue and capital requirements in terms of a formula or some system to be worked out between themselves and the Central Government. I cannot for the life of me understand why, as the hon. member for Parktown said, the Minister of Finance is being so coy. He seems to be behaving like a reluctant debutante as far as giving information on this matter is concerned. I cannot understand why he must conceal from the public his line of thinking in regard to this problem.

Inadequate provincial funds lead to inadequate services. I think we must remember that those inadequate services include the provision of hospital facilities, the provision of adequate schools and the provision of library services throughout the provinces. This lack of planning and of adequate services will continue as long as there is uncertainty about finances. The hon. member for Durban (Point) quoted some remarks made by the Administrator of the Cape. I want to quote from some other statements made by the Administrator over the years. In 1966 he said: “Certain services will have to be postponed or curtailed,” and in 1967, “there will have to be curtailment of certain services. Unless this province obtains a new subsidy formula or some other financial new deal from the Central Government, we are headed straight for the rocks”. On 5th March, 1968, the Administrator said: “This province is still headed for the rocks.”

Which province is that?

The Cape Province. I am quoting from the remarks made by the Administrator of the Cape Province over the years. In May, 1968, he said:

The hon. member for False Bay suffered under these difficulties. The report goes on to say that in 1969, as a result of the shortage of personnel and so forth, there was an increase in the backlog of repairs to schools and other buildings. That is not the only problem in keeping up the services. One also has the problem of capital planning. I should like to indicate to the hon. the Minister what it is costing the Cape Province because this question has not been tackled before and what it will cost the taxpayers of South Africa because of the delay in this financial planning. Let us take the position of the Tiervlei Hospital which was planned in 1961. The hospital was planned to an estimated cost of R17 million. However, the funds were not available and the building of this hospital was delayed. By 1966 the estimated cost had risen to R26 million. In 1967 it rose to R34 million. By 1970, as the hon. member for False Bay can perhaps tell me now, this amount will probably be nearer to R50 million because of the delay in building that hospital.

There is work on the province’s Capital Work programme that will cost double the amount that it would have cost had this Government done something 10 or 12 years ago to sort out the formula. Here we have a province working in this position when the total capital debt of the Cape Province is less than one year’s expenditure. Yet it is held in this position. It has no funds. It cannot raise funds. It is held under this system of ad hoc treatment by the State year after year. I do believe that the time has come that the Government must now accept the responsibility for the lack of services and the delay in the provision of services by the provinces. This Nationalist Government must accept the responsiiblity for what has happened so far as this province is concerned, and, I believe, for what has happened in other provinces too. I can speak particularly so far as this province is concerned. The Government must accept responsibility for the delays in the undertaking of essential work so far as health services, the services for education and the services for the amenities of people of the Cape Province are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is most unfair for the hon. member for Green Point to accuse the hon. the Minister that the Government is responsible for the fact that certain services have not been provided in the provinces. I do not think this is fair, because if that province were to have stated its case to the Government, and if it were a deserving case, it would have received attention. I challenge the hon. member to mention one deserving case where the Government had acted unsympathetically towards the province concerned. I do not think that hon. member ought to refer to certain hospital services which have not been provided. The only time these services were of a poor standard, was when that hon. member was a member of the Executive Committee. Since the time he ceased to be a member of the Executive Committee, things have been going quite well for the Cape Province in this regard. They do not have so many problems now. The hon. member also referred to the services provided to education. If there is one record of which the Government is proud, it is this one concerning the facilities which have been provided by the various provinces in respect of education.

Hon. members opposite always say one should not drag a delicate question into politics. If ever there was a delicate question, it is this one concerning the financial relations between the State, the provinces and the local authorities. The hon. member for Witbank and I were members of the Head Committee of the United Municipal Executive for many years. We are qualified to talk about this matter. We therefore ask the hon. the Minister today not to submit to us an over-hasty and half-baked report. This is a most difficult problem. If the Minister were to submit these half-baked and ill-considered reports, the Opposition would be the first to attack him.

By the time the White Paper is laid upon the Table, it should be a well-considered document so that the problems can be solved to the satisfaction of local authorities, Provincial Administrations and the State. But is is unfair towards the Minister to try and drag a red herring across the floor of the House this afternoon. I should like to add that the attitude of the Central Government towards the provinces has always been a sympathetic one and when the hon. member for Durban (Point) says that the administration of the province of Transvaal is a poor one, it only goes to show that the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. Just go and take a look at the Transvaal. I am proud of the administration in the Transvaal. When one wants to see progress, one should go and take a look at the Transvaal. [Interjections.] That hon. member is confined to the small area of North Rand and does not know what the Transvaal looks like. He should go and take a look at the schools, the hospitals and the roads in the Transvaal and he will see that they are among the best in the country. Leave the Transvaal alone; we are running that province quite well.

I want to begin at once with the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member made certain statements which, to my mind, were unfounded. Let me first say, in general terms, that the Minister of Finance does not act unilaterally in determining a new subsiary formula. In order to obtain an effective formula, it goes without saying that there should be consultations between the provinces and the Minister on the basis for the financing.

But it takes so long.

It was alleged by the hon. member that because capital funds had not been made available the erection of the Tygerberg hospital had been delayed to such an extent that its final cost would amount to twice the original estimate. I want to refute this allegation straight away. On the contrary, I want to submit that, in some cases, it has not been possible to spend within the specified year the funds which had been made available for this hospital over the past five years. This was due to certain factors.

Factories such as?

Although the hon. member for Maitland is no financial expert there is nothing wrong with his hearing and for that reason he should keep quiet for a moment and listen. As I have said, there were certain factors which affected the progress of and the spending of funds on the Tygerberg Hospital. The most important of these factors was the question of the professional staff which were responsible for planning the hospital; secondly the inability of the building industry to complete certain contracts within a particular year; thirdly, there was the additional factor which the hon. member for Green Point should be aware of because when that hon. member was a member of the Executive Committee he also dealt with hospital administration. The third factor—and the hon. member will have to admit this—was the fact that the volume of the hospital has increased to an enormous extent since the planning stage. It goes without saying that, when a hospital is being planned, regard should be had to the developments which have taken place in the field of medical sciene in the meantime. Let me mention an example here.

The number of beds in respect of the radiology block of that hospital alone, had to be increased from 60 to more than 200. The hon. member should be aware of this and if he still alleges that there has been a delay as a result of the fact that funds were not made available, it would be an untruth, and the hon. member knows it to be an untruth. The hon. member also served on the Executive Committee in his time. It is a fact that, as far as loan capital is concerned, the Administration of the Cape Province up to and including 1964 did not even spend the amount which had been made available. Let us now consider the facts, and the hon. member should be aware of these because the hon. member was at a later stage the leader of the Opposition in the Cape Provincial Council. In 1965-’66 an amount of R16.5 million loan capital was made available by the Treasury to the province, while R42 million is being made available for the financial year 1970-’71, i.e. an increase therefore from R16.5 million to R42 million. During that period not one scheme has been held in abeyance because inadequate loan funds had been made available.

Why did the Administrator complain then?

The hon. member has quoted the Administrator in a particular context, but what are the real facts as regards the recurrent account? Basically the provinces have certain direct sources of taxation—personal tax, provincial income-tax as a percentage of the normal income-tax. Furthermore, they are dependent upon statutory subsidies and extra-statutory subsidies when they show a deficit. In 1965-’66 the subsidies paid to the Cape Provincial Administration and given as a percentage of its expenditure on current account, amounted to 35.05 per cent; in 1969-’70 it was 52.85 per cent in the form of statutory and extra-statutory grants.

In terms of money this means R48.7 million in 1965-’66 as against R115,4 million in 1969-’70. This means that, as a result of negotiations conducted between the provinces and the Minister of Finance and the Treasury, the provinces shared in the general economic prosperity which has been prevailing in our country during the past five years. In the first place, they have received the benefit of the economic prosperity through their direct sources of revenue. However, as a result of their requirements and anticipated deficits, extra-statutory subsidies had to be paid.

May I ask a question?

No. My time is limited. The result was that the Cape Provincial Administration did not have any deficits at the close of its accounts during the past five years owing to the steps taken by the hon. the Minister in making an extra-statutory grant.

The speeches of the hon. member for False Bay and of the hon. member for Brakpan …

What did the hon. member for Brakpan say?

Enough to show how little substance there was in the speech of the hon. member for Green Point. [Interjections.] If you will allow me the opportunity to do so, I want to show to you that the hon. member for Green Point was being somewhat irresponsible in the remark he made here. The hon. member for Durban (Point) held forth on certain rumours which were allegedly doing the rounds. He based his whole argument on certain rumours.

You can kill them now.

Let me first say something about these rumours, and then I shall return to the hon. member for Green Point. Sir, the hon. member for Green Point spoke here about certain things we allegedly wanted to do, i.e. that the provinces would in future have to submit their statements to this House, and that odd things would befall the provinces. I want to tell him that he should please not take any notice of rumours of the kind he brought before this Committee here to-day.

Do you repudiate them?

Yes, I repudiate those rumours, but on one thing I cannot give the hon. member the assurance for which he asked. The hon. member asked me to give the assurance that I would not effect any change in the powers of taxation of the provinces. Then we may just as well call a halt to the work we have been doing up to now. For example, the whole investigation of the Schumann Commission in particular, and the whole exercise we are engaged in at present, are calculated at finding a new formula as far as the financial relations between the provinces and the Government are concerned, and I would be completely irresponsible if I were to say I was not going to bring a new formula. It may be that the provinces will get more powers or that they will get fewer powers, but I would be completely out of order in giving the hon. member the assurance that no change will be effected in the manner of financing. The other rumour the hon. member mentioned here, was that we were not proceeding with the matter, because the province of the Transvaal would be detrimentally affected whereas the Cape would benefit from it. But, Sir, that that would count with us, is pure nonsense. I want to point out to the hon. member that the province of the Transvaal received no favours from the State in this Budget before us. At the beginning of each year the various provinces come to me; they submit their problems and financial difficulties is to me. Then we give them what is due to them in terms of the Act, and if that is insufficient, we give them additional extra-statutory allowances.

If they beg a little.

I shall come to that point, but let me tell the hon. member that the province of the Transvaal did not receive one cent extra from the Government. All it received, was what was due to it in terms of the Act. I shall tell the hon. member what that was: “Transvaal: Loss of personal and provincial income-tax and companies tax”—this is what it lost as a result of our new method of taxation— “R27 million; 50 per cent of expenditure on vocational education and 1968 concessions, R5.7 million; loss of companies tax, R1.5 mil-llion”. It received only the amount due to it in terms of the Act. The Cape, on the other hand, was given an amount of R29.7 million by way of additional special extra-statutory allowances. We treated the Cape particularly well. The Cape received R29.7 million by way of special extra-statutory allowances, and the Transvaal nothing. Therefore, the hon. member cannot tell me that we are possibly afraid of continuing with the matter, because the Transvaal will be detrimentally affected by it and the Cape will derive benefit from it. That is why I say the hon. member for Green Point was being irresponsible. He attacked us here, because the Cape Province had to postpone certain matters because it allegedly did not have the money for them and did not receive it from us. The hon. member for False Bay told him that this was not merely a financial question. It was a question of material which could not be delivered, and of labour which could not be found. But the vital point is that I and the Government have to refuse our own colleagues, the Ministers, money for our own Departments. Every year it is our task to refuse money for projects which they want to undertake and which perhaps ought to be undertaken, but for which we refuse them the money. Therefore, are we to give the provinces the right to proceed with all their projects, while we do not have sufficient money ourselves to enable us to proceed with essential projects of the Government? That is what I call irresponsible on the part of the hon. member, i.e. that he was creating the impression that we should give the money to the provinces to proceed with all their projects with which they think they ought to proceed.

But it is a long-term policy.

The same long-term planning holds good for the Departments of the State. However, the provinces always have the opportunity to come to us at the beginning of the year, and on that occasion we have a thorough discussion with every province about its finances and its future plans. We examine these matters together and we give the provinces as much as we think is necessary and is fair, and as much as we can afford in the circumstances. [Interjection.] To come to the main point, I admit I said in this House that I was hoping to submit a White Paper within a certain time, and I know I have not done so, because we have found that the work involved in this task is far more difficult, vast and comprehensive than we ever expected. I once said in this House that there was something such as the physical capacity of a state and of a public service; that the State is physically able to do certain things and no more. If you knew what a shortage of manpower we have within certain departments, and particularly the Department of Finance, it would surprise you that the Department of Finance has achieved what it has in these times. I must on this occasion express a word of gratitude to the Department of Finance and to the Treasury for the work which the men in that Department have done over the years, however small their numbers have been. And that is the case with this particular matter. We have been engaged in it for a few years. We have made a great deal of progress. We have reached the stage where we have drafted the third of the White Papers we discussed with the provinces, but then we encounter difficulties and it has to be redrafted. We have drafted the third of these White Papers on these matters. We have proceeded far as regards the discussions with the provinces; we have made a great deal of progress, but time and physical manpower are the things which make it virtually impossible for us to proceed more rapidly than we are doing. I think this is all I can say in this regard.

Now you will allow me, Sir, before I resume my seat, to say something in respect of one of my officials. The Committee will forgive me for saying just a few words in respect of the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. L. V. Lodder, who is about to retire from our service and will no longer be in our service at the time of the next session of Parliament. Not only because it is customary, but also because I want to do so, I should now like to avail myself of the opportunity here in the Committee to express my gratitude and that of the Government, as well as the gratitude of this House, to Mr. Lodder, the retiring Secretary to the Treasury, for the valuable work he has done for the State as an official and in the capacity of the Secretary to the Treasury. Mr. Lodder joined the Public Service as a member of the staff of the Treasury in January, 1927. That was 43 years ago. He worked in another department for a short time, and after having served in all the lower ranks in the Treasury, he was promoted on 1st October, 1959, to Deputy Secretary and on 1st December, 1962, to Secretary to the Treasury. Therefore, he has been occupying this very responsible position of Secretary to the Treasury for nearly eight years. As this is the last opportunity I shall have, I should like to express my sincere appreciation for the seriousness and the responsibility with which he has always performed his duties, and for the loyalty which I and the State have always received from him. I think I am speaking on behalf of all those present when I express my gratitude to Mr. Lodder and wish him an extremely pleasant period of rest when he retires from the Service.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my tribute to the one the hon. the Minister has paid to the Secretary to the Treasury. I have had the pleasure of being associated with the Secretary ever since I came to Parliament and since I became a member of the Public Accounts Committee. We have always found him helpful, knowledgeable and above all putting the interest of the State first. We on this side of the House join with the hon. the Minister in wishing him a long and happy retirement and in thanking him for the service he had rendered to this House and to the country.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 11.— “Customs and Excise”, R21,085,000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 4 — “Customs and Excise”, R105,000.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a number of matters under this Vote and the first one is a delicate matter but one which I believe is our duty to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister and this Committee. The position is that Customs and Excise work particularly closely with the business firms of South Africa, the manufacturers, commerce and industry as well as with the clearing and shipping agencies. Over recent years friction has developed which has harmed the smooth relationship between the Department and sections of commerce and industry. This is reflected in the morale of the Department’s personnel. Some of the difficulties have been eliminated by delegation of authority and changes of duties and responsibilities, and the improvements have shown one thing. It showed that this is a Department which required specialized knowledge. It is a Department which requires a person to know the job of the Department in particular. If the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister has ever been into a customs office and seen the volumes of documents which any person who joins the Customs Department and rises through it to any position, has to know and understand, he will appreciate what I mean. These are not usual documents which a person can read through and assimilate, but these are volumes and volumes of intricate tables, schedules, instructions, procedures and so on. I believe that we require people with special aptitudes in the first place, who will be able to absorb all this knowledge. But over a lifetime of service in the Department public servants in Customs and Excise get to know the work and to handle it almost by instinct. We are reaching the stage where the present head of the Department will, in due course, be retiring from the Department. I particularly want to plead with the hon. the Minister to use all influence possible to ensure that a member of the Department with full knowledge of the procedures, background and detail of the Department is appointed as the new head when the time comes. This is a matter about which there is very strong feeling and I want to make this plea in all seriousness in the interests of the Service and in the interests of those in commerce and industry who have to work with the Department. There is no doubt that the sort of undercurrents about which one has been hearing, are not in the interests of the State or of good administration.

To give examples, the sort of criticism one hears, and I would like an explanation for this, is that we have seconded to the Swaziland Government and to the Lesotho Government persons from the Department. We hear that Swaziland, which has toy far the greater volume of business with South Africa, has an administrative officer, whereas Lesotho has an under-secretary seconded to handle a much smaller volume of work. We also hear that there are other reasons, other than the amount of work, for the selection of the people concerned. I have heard that there have been promotions within the Department to posts which in fact have not existed on the establishment and in particular to the position of Undersecretary. I have heard that at stages in the recent past there have been more Undersecretaries than there were posts provided for that particular position. I have heard, for instance, Mr. Chairman, that in March this year there was an Appeal Court case because there had been an omission when new tariffs were drawn up. This omission could apparently have been easily rectified, but because of the determination of people who are perhaps not fully acquainted with the problem it was taken to the Supreme Court instead and then on to the Appeal Court. That appeal was lost simply because of obstinacy with great cost to the State. There is a general atmosphere of discontent, friction and, shall I say, obstinacy within the Department. I asked a question recently regarding a transfer from Jan Smuts Airport of a customs officer, a senior official. It was admitted that he had been transferred, but the reason given was “departmental considerations”. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what those departmental considerations are, and I want to ask him to deny, if it is untrue, the rumour that he was transferred because he asked a certain V.I.P. to pay duty on something which was brought into the country. This sort of thing is building up an atmosphere of discontent which should not be allowed to continue. I believe it can be dealt with best by appointing, when the time comes, a person from within the Department who is experienced and has a background knowledge of the Department’s work to give the leadership that is necessary there. The Public Service Commission has recently been on a trip visiting customs offices and I will deal with this matter under another Vote. I hope, however, that they too will perhaps have come to this conclusion.

I also want to deal with the question of the administration of sales duty, which falls under this Department. We criticized the proposed administration of sales duty, which I prefer to call the consumer tax because it is a tax on the consumer, when it was introduced. I do not have the time to deal with it in detail now, but in October 1969 we find, after all the trail and error, the printing of forms and eventually the establishment of an administrative procedure, that a new circular went out from the department comprising six pages of closely printed instructions and a vast mass of new forms. It is a whole host of new forms which, not the department or the Government —in this case they are not wasting the taxpayer’s money— but the manufacturers have to have reprinted at their own expense. I think it works out at some 17 or 18 new forms which have to be printed. Incidentally it is interesting to see the examples which are given of the sort of things which the Government is taxing. For instance, in these dummy forms they have chosen as examples the two items of filing cabinets and games of chance. I submit that the thousands of filing cabinets which are being made in such a volume here, and which they give as an example, are becoming more and more necessary because of the red tape involved in the administration of the Government. That is why we find that instinctively the Government is choosing as an example of something liable to tax filing cabinets which the police … [Time expired].

Mr. Chairman, in substance the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Point), who has just resumed his seat, is exactly the same as the speech he made last year. It is an attack on the officials of the Department of Customs and Excise, except that this time he went much further and spoke in an uncontrolled manner, without mention-ing a single corroborative example, of alleged friction in the department and of problems between the officials and Commerce which would allegedly prejudice good relationships. He said here, for example, that there are “very strong feelings” and “undercurrents”. Then he compared our officials with the officials of the Lesotho Department of Customs and Excise.

You took the wrong tape.

The hon. member has just said it, and I stick to that. His whole speech was based on “I have heard”. This was like a refrain throughout his whole speech. Then he spoke of a “general atmosphere of discontent”. I now want to tell that hon. member that this Committee ought to have the greatest appreciation for what the officials of the Department of Customs and Excise are doing locally and abroad.

That is exactly what I am advocating.

Why does the hon. member then speak of a “general atmosphere of discontent”, even going so far as to want to prescribe to the hon. the Minister whom he should appoint to succeed the present Secretary for Customs and Excise? The hon. member is directly prescribing to the Minister whom he should appoint. It is surely customary for senior officials, for example Deputy Secretaries, to be moved across to other departments. They are very successfully appointed as Secretaries of those departments. I do not know whether I need mention an example, but I could mention several here. Where does that hon. member come by the allegation that if an official has done very well in one department he is worth nothing as the head of another department? I submit that it is, in fact, this hon. member’s questions, a few of which he quoted, and others which I shall quote, that are creating this “atmosphere of discontent” and so on in the Department. He asks here in column 789 (Hansard, 1970):

1. (1) Whether any promotions to the post of Under-Secretary in the Department of Customs and Excise have been made during the last year; if so, (a) who was so appointed and (b) how long had each served in the Department?
2. (2) whether any officers in the Department senior to such persons were superseded; if so, how many in each case?

The hon. the Minister gave him the reply, and there is nothing wrong with the reply. From this reply does the hon. member want to tell us where he comes by that “atmosphere of discontent” that he allegedly heard of, and which he has been mentioning here during the past two years? I think the hon. member would now really be doing the Department of Customs and Excise a big favour if he would do his duty as a member of this House and hand over that information, supported toy proof, to the Minister concerned or to the Secretary of the Department—if he does have that information about which he hears so many rumours.

That is what I am doing now.

Sir, I am very sorry, tout a series of statements beginning with “I have heard of”, and talk of “friction” and “difficulties”, do not corroborative proof. I think that hon. member owes it to this House and to this Department, which he is besmirching to such an extent, to bring that information forward and to give it openly to the Minister or to the Department. I believe that there is some or other frustrated person who is carrying stories to that hon. member that have no foundation. In the process he is doing a very great disservice to a very good Department, which is doing very great work in the interests of the country. Six or seven officials of the Department of Customs and Excise abroad have to work many hours overtime and do a very great deal of work to get this system of sales duty of ours going on that end at this stage. I wonder if the hon. member realizes what a disservice he is doing to those officials. I wonder if the hon. member realizes what a disservice he is doing to our officials locally, who freely worked tens of thousands of hours overtime to make our sales duty system the success it is. Did he also hear rumours about those officials working loyally for this Republic? Did he also hear such rumours? I think that the officials, as well as ourselves in this House, are already tired of the stories the hon. member for Durban (Point) tells every year about the Department of Customs and Excise. He must please come forward with proof so that everyone may understand what he is talking about.

Mr. Chairman, I think it should toe made absolutely clear to the hon. member for Pretoria (District) and the House that we on this side have no criticism against the vast majority of the hard-working officials in the Department of Customs and Excise. They are doing a magnificent job, and we did say so. If anybody, after what I have said now, accuses us of attacking the majority of these hard-working officials, that person will be guilty of an infamous lie. What my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Point), did point out was that there was dissatisfaction about certain things which had been happening in the department. It is our duty as an official Opposition to bring these matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister and to ask him to investigate them and to take the necessary steps. There is nothing wrong with indicating that there is dissatisfaction in certain departments. When the other side of the House was in opposition, they pointed out, not correctly, though, that there was dissatisfaction in the postal services, amongst rail-waymen, and so on. There is nothing wrong in saying that. They even had commissions appointed in that regard. If I may offer a constructive suggestion, the solution may be to declare the Department of Customs and Excise what I think is called a “closed” department. This will limit the transfer of officials from other departments into this particular department. I mention this to the hon. the Minister as a possibility.

I first of all want to discuss the very strange occurrence at the customs and excise warehouse sale at Port Elizabeth some time ago. The House will remember what happened. A buyer came to this sale in Port Elizabeth and bought a box for R52. When he opened it, he found valuable Boeing 727 spares. He found, in fact, two fuel pump actuators worth R6,500.

It was “the money or the box.”

It certainly was a case of having the right box and winning the first prize. I am not saying that this was bought illegally. Afterwards the South African Airways agreed to buy back these Boeing spares from this person who had bought them, but they were not prepared to pay the market value. The buyer then tried to export these Boeing spares. He was told that they had a certain military value and he was prevented from exporting them.

Two Ministers are involved in this matter. One is the Minister of Transport and the other is the Minister of Finance, as head of the Department of Customs and Excise. It is to the latter Minister I am now speaking. These customs warehouse sales are sales of unentered goods, abandoned goods and forfeited goods. When I asked him a question on this matter, the Minister said that the matter was being investigated. That is fair enough but there are certain points on which the Minister can give this House clarity at this stage. I wish to assure him and the hon. the Minister of Transport that we are not going to allow them to pass the buck from one to the other in respect of this fantastically strange sale of R6,500’s worth of Boeing spares. The Minister should be able to tell us whether those goods which were imported were properly addressed to the Airways. Were they sent by some or other form of registered mail? Were they at any time entered in the customs books? Were the Airways notified of the arrival of these spares? Who decided to place these spares on the customs and excise warehouse sale at Port Elizabeth? Were these parcels opened beforehand to check whether they contained anything of value? It is not unusual for the Department of Customs and Excise to open parcels coming from abroad. Was the value of these spares indicated on any particular document? Surely the value is indicated on customs documents in most cases? How on earth did it happen that these valuable spares ever landed on a give-away sale at a customs and excise warehouse? What is going on? Who is investigating this? Is it that hon. Minister’s Department, or the Department of Transport, or a joint committee, or the Police, or the Security Branch? We cannot wait for months to hear exactly what has happened. The hon. the Minister can make a preliminary statement on what has been discovered up to now.

I want to come to another point I should like to raise in the short time left to me, namely the growing activities of the Department of Customs and Excise in regard to the censorship of mail coming in from abroad. At present the Department of Customs and Excise is probably the chief supplier of dubious literature to the Publications Board. If officials of the department are in doubt as to whether a certain article or a certain publication is objectionable, they are allowed to present it to the Publications Board for a final judgment. But they also have other powers, and this is where I start objecting. The Department of Customs and Excise has the power to impose a spot fine of up to R2,000 or three times the value of confiscated goods, when it takes something into its possession as a result of an inquiry or an investigation at an airport or any port of entry. That is a power which I believe the ordinary official should not have. It is wrong for a customs officer to be a policeman, a prosecutor and a judge at the same time.

I do not like this sytem for various reasons. First of all, I believe it is wrong in principle that a public servant should be the policeman, the prosecutor, the censor, the judge and the jury rolled into one. It is wrong that a customs official should have as great a power—if not greater—of imposing a fine as a magistrate in our courts. It can lead to injustice. A customer who is doubtful about a publication which he might have in his possession, might decide to pay the spot fine which the customs officer imposed or else he might get into much greater trouble. However, injustices are done. I have heard of a case of a professional photographer who brought a certain magazine into this country. He was stopped at Jan Smuts Airport by a customs officer, who looked at the magazine and said: “Ah, nude breasts”, and took the magazine away. A week later copies of that same magazine were found by the same photographer openly and legally for sale at bookstalls in Johannesburg.

I object, secondly, to these officials who act as censors because they are not properly trained. The judge of appeal in this case is the Deputy Secretary of Customs. He delegates his powers to controllers of customs at ports of entry. I submit that they are not properly trained for this type of censorship. At one stage an article appeared in Die Beeld on one of these people at Jan Smuts. He is a very good person, a man over 60 years of age and an elder of the Dutch Reformed Church. But what training did he have? What were his norms? In that article he said that they wanted to keep out matter from abroad which would harm the Afrikaner in South Africa. He said: “Die verbode lektuur is ’n deel van die proses om die Afrikaner af te takel. Die Afrikanervolk moet nader aan die Bybel lewe”. I regard it as arrogant nonsense for an official to stand up and place himself in the position of a moral judge over other people simply because he believes that in some way or other he is protecting the Afrikaner, (read Nationalists in this case,) from so-called immoral literature. It is an unheard of state of affairs if those are the criteria of judgment which are used.

What actually happens and has happened up to now is firm proof that these people are not properly trained for that work. In one single year they held back 700 publications. They issued a summary judgment on 200 of those 700 publications, imposed a spot fine, and sent the other 500 to the Publications Board. The Publications Board turned down no less than half of those. In other words, out of 700 publications held back, only 250 were found to be objectionable. What sort of norms are used by the Customs and Excise Department? What knowledge do they have of this type of work in this particular instance when they can only succeed in one out of three cases in proving that a certain article was objectionable? Either these particular inspectors of customs do not know the law, or otherwise they are wasting the country’s time and the country’s money. They are deliberately being verkrampte blue-stockings and they are irritating the country with their stupid interference by a moral war of attrition.

I have been checking the Government Gazette for the past few weeks. It seems to me that this particular customs department has a special hatred against a magazine called Play-boy. In fact, they imposed spot fines for the possession of Playboy of between R30 and R200. [Interjections.] Unless that hon. member has read Playboy, he cannot comment on it. And if he has read it, I should like to find out where he got hold of it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I truly regret the remarks made by the hon. member for Durban (Point). I do not doubt that the accusations the hon. member made in respect of the appointments in this Department perhaps tally with the complaint I have here. The difference between myself and the hon. member for Durban (Point), however, is that I do not let myself get carried away so easily by gossip, and I do not use it to discredit certain people. For that reason I shall leave the matter at that.

It is a heart-felt need for me to stand up in this House to-day and to thank this Department for the open-door policy it has maintained up to now. Specifically because of the nature of my activities I have taken cognizance of these accusations the hon. member for Durban (Point) made, but I did not run to the Minister with them. On the contrary, where I have dealings with clearing agents we tackle our work there as it should be tackled. We cannot agree with every decision which either the Secretary or this Department makes from time to time. Sir, it would be unreasonable to expect this of us. At about the middle of 1969 this Department made a certain decision. We could not agree with that decision, but because we could not do so does not mean that we should stand up in this House and merely criticize. No, we took up the matter with that Department, and we found the Department’s door open to us. Sir, I am referring to a decision that was taken by this Department to the effect that components for tractors and stationary machines, for which no express provision is made in the tariffs, and which would normally be classified together with the machine for which they are manufactured, thereby being free of customs duty, would in future be classified under the category “Other Machines”, and that there would be an additional 20 per cent levy imposed on them.

Sir, I also have here, inter alia, a cutting from Die Landbouweekblad of 6th August, 1969. Here the farmers expressed the same concern at this decision which the Department took. Unlike the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Orange Grove, who has just resumed his seat, we took this matter up with the Department of Customs and Excise. We want to make use of this opportunity this afternoon of thanking the previous Deputy Minister (the present Minister of Planning) and this Department warmly for the open-door policy they followed. They listened to our case and eventually put the matter right for us. I want to say thank you very much to the Department of Customs and Excise for this way in which they work, since they created the opportunity for us to state our case and put the matter right for us in this instance. Sir, I also have a heart-felt need to thank this Department for another very important piece of work. At the introduction of the sales duty certain problems developed between the Republic of South Africa and Lesotho in respect of certain business individuals who traded there in various ways. Sir, it was our experience that the sales duty in Lesotho was not paid, with the result that those citizens could compete with our people on a slightly unfair basis, and once more our representations to this Department succeeded; we once more encountered the open-door policy there. We were welcome to make our representations, and the result was that this Department solved this problem for us that had developed between the Republic of South Africa and Lesotho. We say thank you very, very much to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to the Department. I think I am speaking on behalf of this Committee when I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to bring it home to the Government that in this Department he will appoint whomever he wishes, and not the persons whom the clearing agents want appointed.

Sir, I cannot allow the hon. members who have spoken have said to pass unquestioned. We are being asked here to vote money for a Department which is important to the administration of South Africa. Because of my appreciation of the intricate nature of the work and my high respect for the people who are doing it, I have pleaded with the hon. the Minister that, when senior posts become vacant in this Department, he fill them with people from that Department, especially because I appreciate the work that those people are doing and the specialized knowledge that they have. If I wanted to criticize the Department then I would not be pleading for people from that Department to be promoted to the senior posts; I would then be looking for someone else. It is my high respect for the people with a lifetime of experience in Customs which makes me plead that they be recognized. I could quote names; I could quote details, but I have refrained from doing that. I have refrained from talking about two oversea trips within a short period, one trip followed by another trip. I have refrained from doing so, but I will talk about another case, because it does not involve names; I refer to the question of our oversea investigation officers. After previous experience, when those in the Department knew that you received no co-operation in Japan in determining values for sales duty and import purposes, we nevertheless sent another investigator to Japan in 1968. In the whole of that year he made three investigations. In the whole of the following year he made six investigations. But the Department should have known before he was sent there that it was not going to work. We have our people over there who know what the position is and who could have told them. But we nevertheless sent a man over with his family, with his children, at great expense. In fact in 1968 when that post was opened we incurred additional expenditure amounting to R14,000.

What is your suggestion?

My suggestion is that that person should not have been sent there; the Department should have known better. But, Sir, when I plead in the interests of the Department and of the Service, then hon. members opposite accuse me of attacking the officials. I am pleading for people not to be put in a position where they have to take decisions on matters on which they are not fully informed.

Sir, I want to raise two other matters, both in connection with the sales tax. When the hon. the Minister compared himself with Solomon or used the wisdom of Salomon in his Budget, he picked the wrong example. If he had had 800 wives or 1,000 wives, or whatever number Solomon had, I promise you, Sir, that there is one tax which he would not levy and that is the tax on cosmetics in South Africa.

And hair curlers.

Sir, a thousand wives and he taxes hair curlers! A thousand wives and he taxes lipstick and then even increases it after a year! He got more money from the sales tax than he needed and yet he increased this tax. Sir, do you know what this is doing? I want to warn the hon. the Minister. What it is doing is that it is starting a new fashion, the so-called natural look. Sir, heaven help South Africa from the natural look if this Minister stays in power too long because from cosmetics it is going to go on to other things. The hon. the Minister is looking for trouble. I want to make a plea to him in this regard. He made some concessions earlier this year. I plead with him please to think of the wives, who would guide him if he had enough of them to guide him, and to do something about this tax.

Then there is one other tax that I want to deal with very seriously in the minute that is left to me. I refer to a matter which we raised with the Minister by way of question and interjection, and that is the sales duty on poppies for Remembrance Day. The hon. the Minister said that he had been advised that administratively nothing could be done about it. Sir, this is not a question for playing the fool. This is something which strikes very deep in the hearts of thousands of South Africans. We have in this Parliament two Books of Remembrance, where every day a page is turned. This is something which affects deep emotions, feelings, families. There are very few of us here who will not find the name of one of our kith and kin in one of those books in this building. This to us is a small and petty thing which by administrative action could be removed, and I want to plead that it be exempted from taxation.

I shall start with the last point which the hon. member for Durban (Point) raised. I do not want to argue with him about the value or the lesser importance of cosmetics. I think he should rather resolve his matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance. Regarding the matter of the poppies to which he referred, it is my feeling at the moment that this may create problems, because they are artificial flowers, if I understand the position correctly, and to make any special exception in respect of artificial flowers may lead to further complications.

It is a special flower for a special day once a year.

Yes, but then the problem arises of a special flower for a special day in a society for which different days in the year may have different significances.

You are showing your disrespect.

You are being silly.

Regarding the mission to Japan, about which the hon. member for Durban (Point) complained, it seemed rather strange to me when the hon. member said that the Department should have known in advance. As far as my knowledge of this matter goes, it was a sincere attempt which was made, and I do not know on what grounds the hon. member for Durban (Point) could allege to-day that it should have been known before the time that the mission would not have a favourable result.

Did you have no previous experience?

Probably years ago, but our relations with Japan have changed completely over the years. The hon. member for Durban (Point) furthermore referred to friction among the staff and he said —and in this respect I agree with him completely—that this is a Department which works very hard and performs difficult work. I do not want to argue with him about that. In connection with the matter of friction among the staff, and what he added in this connection, like his suggestion in connection with the appointment of the new head and his reference to an official who had allegedly been transferred from Jan Smuts Airport, I want to tell the hon. member in the first place that if this Committee should lend itself to discussing the grievances, merits or shortcomings of officials in our Public Service across this floor in every session, we would do tremendous harm to our Public Service.

You have done so regularly.

It would prejudice the status of the Public Service. It would be broken down. The hon. member should know that every matter has two sides. I will not complain if the hon. member speaks about tendencies in any Department and substantiates his statements properly, but what the hon. member does is to come down on persons, and if this House should lend itself to analysing the merits or shortcomings of persons in the Public Service here, it would harm the Public Service.

Did he have a quarrel with the wife of a Cabinet Minister?

Sir, I have nothing to do with the hon. member’s quarrel about quarrels. This concerns persons, and the hon. member knows what the Public Service Act provides and what the position is in respect of public servants. But nevertheless, if the hon. member believes that any person has been done an injustice in the Public Service, no matter in what Department it may be, the door of the Minister concerned will not be closed to him, in spite of the existing rules in the Public Service. But, unfortunately, the hon. member for Durban (Point) does not do this. Last year, I remember, there was a dispute here about a person, and my predecessor, the then Deputy Minister of Finance, asked him to furnish him with those details, but then he said that those persons would be victimized. I think the hon. member then undertook to remove the names and then make the information available, but I believe he did not do this.

I refused to make the names available.

I think it was outreageous of the hon. member Virtually to demand, to make a pertinent request, that since the next new head of the Customs and Excise Department is to be appointed, it should be someone from that Department. In saying this I am not suggesting that it should be somebody from the Department or from outside, or that I have any information about the matter, because I do not. I am not supposed to know who it is. But that hon. member definitely does not have enough knowledge of the capabilities and the competence of officials who will have to come into consideration when such a senior post must be filled that he is in a position to make a choice, as he has in fact done.

But he did not make a choice.

But he indicated that it ought to be a person from this Department and I am saying that he does not have enough knowledge about this.

My I ask whether you received any other representations, apart from what I said?

No, I am not aware of any other representations in this connection.

Are you saying that no other representations were made?

No, I cannot say that, but I am not aware of any other representations.

Then the hon. member for Durban (Point) raised the question of Swaziland and Lesotho. My information here is that these two areas form part of the Customs Union, and when volunteers were called for, the Under-Secretary to whom he referred was the only applicant, the only person who was prepared to go. I think this explains that position. In addition, the hon. member accused the Department of obstinacy in connection with a court case which occurred in March this year. According to my information, the decision of the court was not unanimous. The judges were divided and there was a majority and a minority decision. In other words, when he said that the Department had gone to court because of obstinacy, he was surely very clearly wrong. In any case in which the Department has some doubt, and we assume that doubt did exist, to such an extent in fact that there was division among the judges, should the Department, simply knuckle under?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the case arose because of a misplaced 7½ per cent which was not transferred to the new tariff and that the argument was whether that was an administrative error or not, but that the Department insisted on sueing although they knew it had been an administrative error?

I cannot react to the allegations now made by the hon. member, because I have no knowledge in that regard. What I can say to him, however is that the Department proceeded with the case after the customary procedure had been followed, i.e. after the legal advisers had been consulted and had told them to continue, and that there was in fact reason to proceed with the case. It is clear that the matter could not have been as simple as the hon. member for Durban (Point) tries to make out, otherwise the court would not have been divided in its decision. Then the hon. member referred to the person who had been transferred to Johannesburg. I have already referred to that matter, but perhaps it will interest him to know that I have learnt that that person has been transferred again, on promotion. Therefore it is very clear that he is not being discriminated against.

As regards the matter of the filing cabinets and the forms connected therewith which was raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point), I could not quite make out what it was all about. He waved the form about so much that I could gain no clarity from it. The explanation which I have received is that the administration of the sales duty is still in the transitional stage. It is necessary to revise the procedure in respect of sales from time to time. Therefore it is necessary for forms to be changed from time to time. In any case, the Department is mechanizing the accounts in respect of the sales duty. This is the only information which I can give the hon. member in this regard.

The hon. member for Orange Grove once again raised the question of the Boeing spares. A question was put in this House and a reply was given, namely that this matter was being investigated. This is also the only reply which I can give the hon. member at this juncture. In any case, I think it would be wrong if the information which the hon. member now wants and which may possibly be available, were disclosed before the investigation had been completed. On the face of it, it seems to me that it would be wrong.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister to make a statement in this connection when the inquiry has been completed?

It will depend on the hon. the Minister of Transport when decisions will be taken about that. In any case, it is a matter which rests with him.

Then the hon. member for Orange Grove also complained about the spot fines which may be imposed. The statements made by the hon. member for Orange Grove are not quite correct. Where it appears to be necessary, the matter must be referred to a senior person, especially in the case of the banned literature to which the hon. member referred. This has been the legal position in South Africa since before Union. This is the procedure which is also followed in many other countries of the world. For the sake of argument, I am thinking of the right granted to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for example, to decide immediately about a fine as prescribed in the Act. This is by no means something new.

As far as the hon. member’s remarks about objectional literature are concerned, I have a few details here. Usually the literature is already on the banned list, and in other cases notice is given of literature which is withheld. It is correct that if there is any doubt, books are referred to the Board. It is not the position that an ordinary official has the authority to impose fines. Matters which come to notice are referred to more senior officials and, where necessary, even to the Secretary. In regard to the point which the hon. member made in connection with “Playboy”, I just want to say that I do not know what “Playboy” is, but according to my information it is on the banned list.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 13.— “Agricultural Economics and Marketing: Administration”, R3,060,000, 14.— “Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General”, R96,360,000, 15.— “Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, R3,120,000, 16.— “Surveys”, R3,200,000, and 17.— “Agricultural Technical Services”, R35,771,000, Loan Votes C.— “Agricultural Economics and Marketing”, R400,000, and D.— “Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, R36,500,000, and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 5.— “Agricultural Economics and Marketing”, R2,150,000, 6.— “Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, R4,052,000, and 7.— “Agricultural Technical Services”, R2,950,000:

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the halfhour. Some or other philosopher once said: “A truly progressive civilization is one that cultivates the character as well as the environment of man.” I think that if there is ever a task we could set ourselves, it is most certainly that of improving the environment of man, particularly when it comes to agriculture. We hope that we shall shortly see the end of one of the biggest droughts South Africa has had in living memory. Droughts undoubtedly do not only affect the income of the farmer to a large extent. Its effects, in generally bringing agriculture to a standstill, can have a tremendous influence on the overall confidence, not only of the State, but also of the farmer himself. But, Sir, after we have taken stock of the conditions in nature, and the possible ways of limiting its affects on our agriculture to a minimum, there are undoubtedly many bottlenecks in connection with our agriculture that can be changed. With the discussion on agriculture this side of the House hopes to make suggestions to the Government and to point out problems in respect of which steps could be taken to improve the situation.

You see, Sir, it is our attitude that if we rescue the farmer now, we can ensure a prosperous platteland for South Africa. That there ought to be a prosperous platteland in South Africa is not, in my opinion, a point that can be disputed in this House. But, since we are going to deal with the bottlenecks and the difficulties in the agricultural industry, it is also necessary, in these circumstances, that we also give a great deal of attention to the economic side of the industry; because so many of the problems we meet with in agriculture are closely bound up with the farmer’s economic problems. The agricultural industry surely cannot be expected to achieve success when there is no overall national prosperity. If a weakening sets in in other sectors, such a recession, for example, or if there is no increase of spending power in those who must purchase the farmer’s products, the industry most certainly must also suffer. In other words, the overall national prosperity, if there is such a thing, must also have its affects on our agricultural industry. It is, therefore, a source of dissatisfaction to the farmer when there is a large-scale increase in the standard of living and the spending power, and he does not obtain his rightful share in it. One can then immediately understand that dissatisfaction of his.

What was the position over the past few years? Every year there was a good increase in our gross domestic product. The hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned it in his Budget speech. In this way the gross contribution of the manufacturing industry has constantly increased. Likewise there is also a continual increase in services, salaries and wages. Only to-night I saw again in one of the newspapers that the spending power of South Africa, in recent times alone, would be increased by R430 million as a result of salary increases, both by the State and the private sector.

But, Sir, in spite of these good economic conditions in South Africa we find that the farmer has not shared in them. The consumption of agricultural products increases much more slowly. The Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing pointed out once more in his latest report that, with certain products excluded, there was indeed an increase in the consumption of certain agricultural products over the past two years. On page 6 he mentions, for example, that in the case of meat, maize and wheat products, butter and cheese there is not much of an increase. It is a small increase, but it is undoubtedly one of agriculture’s present-day problems, i.e. the fact that the consumption of the farmer’s products does not increase sufficiently to cover surpluses, when these arise. That the farmer is frequently saddled with surpluses that cannot be consumed locally is consequently a bottleneck in our industry. At the same time there is increasingly keener competition in our overseas markets. The exporting of our agricultural products is therefore no longer always profitable either, when we have to compete on the markets abroad. The fruit farmers say, for example, that even as a result of devaluation in Britain a year or two ago, they still lost R5 million last season. Neither is the overseas market always a too stable market. That is why it is necessary for this House to concern itself with the economic aspects of our agricultural industry. I want to refer the hon. the Minister again to the tremendous increase in production costs that we have witnessed in the past few years. With the increase in production costs there was, in fact, something of an increase in producers’ prices as well, but we are always encouraging the South African farmer to produce more and more. In order to produce more and more he must also put so much more into the land. A farmer cannot achieve this without spending capital on it. His machinery, his fertilizer, every item that the farmer uses to-day, costs a great deal more than a few years ago. I should like to refer the Deputy Minister to what Dr. J. van Gardneren, the Director of Agricultural Chemistry said recently. According to the Star, he said the following in reference to fertilizers:

It is therefore not only a question of an increase in expenditure. The means they use to produce are not efficient enough either, and more is being put into the soil than the soil really needs. He continued as follows:

What does he say of nitrogen compounds? There is far too little of them.

Yes, that is so, but the Deputy Minister must listen closely. The point I want to make is this: Even the means the farmer has to use every year are not efficient enough—so much so that farmers are spending an unnecessary amount of R6 million a year on fertilizers; those fertilizers are not necessary. I am dealing with the question of the increase in production costs. The hon. the Deputy Minister may examine the Secretary’s Report. He may examine Die Land-bouweekblad. There is not an agricultural congress or a farmers’ meeting at which they do not air their grievances about the tremendous increase in production costs. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister what I have already told him on a previous occasion. I think that very little can be done about this, for the simple reason that the person supplying a service to the farmer, or selling him a production means, is undoubtedly not going to ask less for it. That is, therefore, one of our problems. Since that is one of our problems, i.e. since there is going to be a regular increase in production costs, we must be prepared to acknowledge that the farmer must obtain regular price adjustments, with a view to neutralizing the increase in production costs. It is a point about which there ought to be unanimity in this House. But it is not just a case of production costs. To-day the farmer has a tremendous number of difficulties in connection with the financing of his industry. He does not only need long-term finance. We know that by means of the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure the State can help considerably. But to-day the farmer must also obtain his short-term and medium-term credit from the private sector. It is not necessary for me to point out to the hon. the Minister that these loans are simply increasing by the day. They have undoubtedly also increased as a result of the unproductive debts the farmers have to incur as a result of the tremendous droughts we have just passed through.

There is another aspect in the economic context about which the farmer feels he is not being given proper consideration, i.e. the recognition of the risk factor. The risk factor is, to a certain extent, acknowledged in respect of certain products, when a fixing of prices takes place for a particular product. However, as far as most products are concerned, there is absolutely no recognition of the risk factor with which the farmer is faced to-day. I am thinking here of droughts, hail and frost damage. Why is it then not possible to-day, by means of State aid, for us to obtain a comprehensive insurance scheme for the farmer, so that he would at least be able to recover his expenses in the case of the aforementioned damages?

Do you now want to enter into competition with existing co-operations?

There comes the first question. The question is whether I do not want to compete with existing insurance schemes.

Co-operatives.

No. The Land Bank, which was specially created, is also acting in competition with private institutions. But one thing we must get very clear is that the agricultural sector, as a result of its individual characteristics and identity, simply cannot be compared with other sectors. That is why it needs special attention and encouragement from the State.

Must it be a compulsory scheme?

The hon. the Minister asks whether it must be a compulsory scheme. Not necessarily. Any farmer who wants to protect his livestock or crop against periods of drought, and against the detrimental conditions in nature, must be free to be able to do it, but there must also be encouragement and help on the part of the State. I am convinced that if this were placed on a sound footing one would not have a private institution that would be prepared to do it. The farmer would not be in a position to pay the premiums either. That is why it is necessary that there should be support from the State. All these things result in a low return on the capital that farmer invests. Unless we are going to reach a point where we shall not begrudge the farmer more for his ingenuity, and for the capital he invests in the industry, we must accept the fact that there will be ever-decreasing confidence in our South African agricultural industry. That is why we feel convinced that the economic aspect of our agriculture should receive the most attention under these circumstances. We may speak until we are blue in the faces about soil conservation and soil erosion, but if the farmer is not financially able to incur those expenses, he will simply become an ever-greater burden on the shoulders of the State. We say so frequently that the farmer must increase his efficiency and keep his farming in order. He must tackle development, but with what must he tackle it? The Minister of Finance told us again to-day that as Minister of Finance he does what the farmer does, who made a good deal of money, and pays off his debts every year. He does not always borrow money for new developments. If he has those surpluses he uses them. There is not a farm in South Africa that cannot extend its development, but an overall inertia has settled upon the farms in a large portion of the country districts as a result of the fact that there is no surplus capital, because the return has become too small. I could take the hon. the Minister to very large farms to-day …

In the Karoo, yes.

Yes, in the Karoo. But I could mention examples of such farms in other places as well. The hon. the Deputy Minister will see that after the effects of the droughts in the South-western Districts have passed, it will still take a few years before there is money for those people to spend on their land. The hon. the Deputy Minister ought to know this. That development cannot take place unless the farmer obtains a decent return on the capital he has invested. Our task here is not only to take care of the agricultural industry as such. It is also our task to look after the man engaged in the agricultural industry. As a result of the poor financial positions of so many of our local farmers, this has also become a sociological problem. In the course of this debate we shall tell the hon. the Minister how we think the farmer should be rehabilitated under these circumstances.

Where do you get a return on a crop failure?

Mr. Chairman, how can the hon. the Minister ask me how one gets a return on a crop failure? If he had listened closely to my ideas in connection with the comprehensive insurance scheme for the future, he would have heard that we could thereby eliminate such a thing altogether.

One would not ensure the return. One only ensures the costs.

But now the farmer has nothing at all. He did not have a crop, and he has lost his costs as well. Does the hon. the Minister want that situation to continue? If we want to correct the situation, the farmer is one of the first people we must take care of, in order to ensure his greater confidence in the future.

How do we think the situation should be changed, particularly after this long drought? In the first place we believe that there are large portions of the country, and particularly of the Karoo, that will have to be withdrawn altogether from use for agricultural purposes. We believe that the livestock withdrawal scheme or the veld reclamation scheme should be applied on a much more extensive scale than at present. I think that the hon. the Minister also has thoughts in that direction.

When the business was suspended I was pointing out what the best way would be to rehabilitate farmers after they have suffered this serious drought. I think that the hon. Ministers who are now in this House ought to give their attention to this matter.

How many of them are there?

One of the most important points we mentioned was the necessity for the farmer himself to be rehabilitated under these circumstances. I believe that one of the ways in which it could be done would be to ensure that those farmers had the fewest possible worries. They have had many worries over the past few years as a result of the accumulation of debts. If there is one question they would like an answer to, at is the question of whether they may expect considerable help from the State with respect to the writing off or the deferment of those debts. The second question concerns what can be done to rehabilitate the farmer’s land. I have already told the hon. the Minister that large portions of the land, particularly in the interior, are in such a condition that the land must be withdrawn from production altogether. I think that this is a way out under the present-day circumstances. In spite of the rain that has fallen, and which is still to come, those parts must be withdrawn to give the veld and the vegetation a chance to recover. But I also think that we must reach finality in this debate on the question of how we can ward off the detrimental consequences of the droughts. We are now in possession of an interim report of the Marais Commission, which made certain recommendations, but onthe part of the State and on the part of the hon. Ministers we have heard very little about how they are going to implement those recommendations.

Have you read the report?

Yes, definitely. We on this side believe that the building up of a fodder bank should receive the Government’s attention, not only on a central basis, but also in relation to the building up of fodder banks on farms. In that respect one thinks, for example, of the planting of drought-resistant vegetation. Even the Marais Commission recommended that farmers should be given assistance in erecting barns; that they should receive subsidies in that connection, and in respect of the planting of drought-resistant vegetation. There is no doubt that at Grootfontein, for example, a great deal of research work has been done in the past few years in connection with the planting of prickly-pears, and even in connection with the improvement of lucerne. We all know that in the interior we have very few farm lands, and whatever farm lands there were have been exhausted as a result of the drought.

I personally think that one of the best ways of building up fodder banks on individual farms would be to restore once more those farm lands that have been destroyed, but I also believe that the individual farmer is not in a financial position to be able to do this to-day. That is why they must obtain the necessary encouragement and support in this connection, in order to be able to do this. Sir, in this House for the past 12 years and longer we have been speaking about the building up of a central fodder bank, but there is no better fodder bank than one on the farmer’s own farm. However, there is one problem in connection with a fodder bank on the farmer’s own farm, and that is the tremendous amount of capital needed for it. That is why I believe that the building up of a fodder bank by means of drought-resistant vegetation would quite probably be much better than building a fodder bank by way of bales of lucerne and chaff, which would probably stand there for years before it was used, and which is, in addition, also subject to the risk of fire, etc.

You must tell that to the hon. member for East London (City).

It is not that I am opposed to the idea of a central fodder bank, but what I will, in fact, say, is that it would have been better if we could have foreseen what happened recently, because a few years ago the lucerne farmers of Vaalhartz and other areas were told that they should plough up their lucerne because they could not be guaranteed a decent price. To-day lucerne is so expensive that most farmers cannot afford it. That is why it would not be a bad idea to ensure that there is enough fodder, because every farmer is not able to construct his own fodder bank on his farm. That is why a central fodder bank, where fodder will always be available, will, of course, provide to a large extent for the needs of many farmers.

I think the time has now come for this House to give its attention to the question of how the consequences of droughts can be forestalled, or restricted to a minimum. But, Sir, that is not all. If we want to rehabilitate the farmer, there is also the question of information and the right kind of training for the farmer. Every few years we encounter totally new circumstances in agriculture, and we know that the farmer’s agricultural training is very slight. The majority of them that enter the farming industry every year have had no formal agricultural training. For that reason education for the farmer should constantly be adapted to the new circumstances that may prevail at the time. And I think that in this respect we can only say that the Government neglected to make the necessary extension officers available for South Africa, as originally envisaged in the 1946 Soil Conservation Act. This still remains a big shortcoming to-day in the country districts. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Newton Park comes along year after year with the same little story that he heard from the agricultural unions about the farmer not receiving his rightful share in the country’s prosperity. Sir, if we look at the prices at which the farmers sell their products, we find that the prices have always increased under this Government’s administration. The hon. member says that the fanners cannot afford the high production costs. When the United Party was in power the farmers obtained fixed prices for certain products, although the lists of products have been greatly extended in recent years. The maize farmer, for example, then produced an average of six to seven bags a morgen. To-day the average production in those same areas is 16 and 17 bags a morgen. Even though production costs have increased, the yield per morgen has increased as much, if not more.

Consequently we must calculate the farmer’s profits, not only per bag, but per morgen, and if we calculate his profits per morgen we shall find that he is making more per morgen than previously. If the price is fixed by the State we must compare it to international prices and see what the price of wool is, which is fixed, not by the Government but by the international market. Farmers do, in fact, have increased costs at present, but as the hon. member himself said, they have gone along and spent R6 million more for fertilizers than they should have. They used unnecessary fertilizer, and this indicates that the farmer is not yet making the proper economic calculations in respect of what he puts into the ground, and that he is also slightly misled by many of the companies selling the fertilizer, telling him that he must use this and use that. They know he is using too much of it, but they would like to get rid of it.

Then the hon. member also spoke about the farmers not having sufficient capital to cover their working costs. During its term of office this Government has done very much more and made very much more money available to farmers for the purposes of production, and that is why we have the high production figures of the past year. We must look at what the wheat crop was, even during the last poor year, in comparison with what it was the year before that. Look at what the maize crop was this year and compare it to other years. Under the United Party Government the maize yield was very meagre. If there were 20 to 25 million bags, the people were at a loss about the surplus, but to-day the consumption of maize in this country is already 50 million bags. This is consequently money that is coming to the farmer, because the production is so high.

Then the hon. member also spoke of a comprehensive insurance scheme. In speaking of an insurance scheme they are also inclined, at times, to refer to America, where there is such a comprehensive insurance scheme, but there it is not a compulsory scheme. Those who want to insure may do so, but they only insure in parts where there is a very high rainfall and not in parts that only receive from 6 to 10 inches of rain a year. Consequently, if we institute a comprehensive insurance scheme in this country, it would cost the farmers a tremendous amount of money in premiums. With the droughts and the hail, etc., which we have, the premiums would be between 12 and 14 per cent, and consequently I, as a farmer, would not just simply want to go in for that comprehensive insurance scheme. If anyone who wanted to could insure, the people in the dry parts of South Africa would insure, but not the people in the parts with a fairly regular rainfall, and this would cause the premiums to become even greater. We are so inclined to say that in another country this and that is done, and therefore it should simply be done here as well, irrespective of whether the circumstances in this country correspond with those in the other countries.

There must be a thorough investigation.

Comprehensive experiments on insurance have already been made in this country, and the companies are already carrying out more experiments. They themselves are afraid to do so on a large scale, and now they are only selecting certain farmers whom they consider to be good farmers and who would not easily have a crop failure during a slight drought. But if one were also to throw it open to the poorer farmer who is not as good at cultivating his land— and it is always difficult to determine whether he has cultivated his land well or not—it would be a very expensive affair.

But if the farmers are having such a bad time, I should like to know why land prices are still increasing. The hon. member for Newton Park thinks only of the Karoo where it is dry now. and he does not think of other parts of the country, where four or five years ago the price of land was about R60 to R70 a morgen, and where several farms were sold in the past six months for R260 and R270 a morgen.

Where is that?

In the Free State, in those parts that hon. members say are so dry. The farmers would not pay those prices if they did not know they could make money out of that land. If the farmers are having such a bad time, why are they paying such high prices for the land? It is because they still see their way clear, at the prevailing prices, to making money out of that land. Our farmers are not such poor economists as the Opposition would have us believe. They also do sums and calculate what their eventual position will be. But if the hon. member for Newton Park says that the fanners have now come to a standstill, and that they cannot continue at the high standard of living of other sections of the population, I want to say that there are farmers who are experiencing difficulties in the Karoo, and we acknowledge this, but there were also times when things went very well for them, in 1951 and 1952. Then they went and paid prices that were too high for land, thinking that those new prices would remain the same for ever. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Ladybrand was attempting, I think, from what I could understand, to make out a case that the farmer should not pretend to expect the same standard of living which the ordinary member of the public who lives in urban areas could expect.

I said not a word about it.

What is that?

The Minister himself has been living in other places. He lives in Cape Town and in Pretoria. If he does not know what the standard of living is of the people in the urban areas, who can? Most of us at least go back to our farms during the recess.

Of which income groups are you talking?

I think the hon. member for Ladybrand and even the Minister will accept that in every single country production costs have been going against the farmer. It cannot be otherwise because the farmer is tied to a product which is subject to all the vagaries of nature. Nature has been referred to as Mother Nature when we know that nature is not a mother but a very capricious little bit of fluff. We who are farmers have to make our living by charming and wooing this…

Piece of fluff!

Yes. this piece of fluff. Every single one of us who are farmers to-day know the difficulties which are associated with nature. The hon. member for Ladybrand did farmers a disservice when he attempted to cast aspersions on representatives of fertilizer companies who he said were only interested in selling fertilizers to the farmers and who were themselves directly responsible for the fact that some R6 million was spent on fertilizers every year which was not necessary. I think the hon. member should realize that a very vital part is being played by those representatives. The farmers should make more use of the analysis services which are offered by the fertilizer companies and follow their recommendations. In that case there might well be spent much less on fertilizers.

Who pays for them?

The farmer pays for them, but if the farmer uses their services and accepts the analysis of his soil which is offered by these companies, he would do very well and might well waste much less of the money than has been mentioned by the hon. member for Newton Park.

They are very shrewd.

The hon. member for Carletonville says they are very shrewd, but I think it is time the farmers realize that they can be shrewd too by utilizing the services of these people who are appointed to help the farmers and who do a very significant and worthwhile task in helping the farmers considerably, certainly in my area. I refer to my area where they certainly have helped a great deal to improve the yield and bring up the worth of the farm where they have been allowed to make recommendations and where their recommendations have been accepted. The hon. member also dealt with an insurance scheme. He said that if it rained in one year the farmers would not insure while the people in the dry areas would insure. I think it has to be accepted that the capital of the farmer is being invested in his crop. A hard up and a badly off farming community is something which drags down the whole economic tempo of life in South Africa. Throughout the whole of the platteland business as a whole suffers if this is the case. You must be able to know that if you invest your money in a crop it is not only the money you invest in fertilizers, but it is also the seed, the work and the whole of your future which you are investing for that particular year. To be able to know that you will recoup something of that, you are not only guaranteeing the farmer some kind of a return, but you are guaranteeing every single business throughout the length and breadth of the platteland so that they will be able to extend the credit in the knowledge that the farmer will be able to meet his obligations at the end of a season. We believe that this is a matter which merits far more attention than what the hon. member for Ladybrand was prepared to give it. I want to return to the other matter which I want to raise to the hon. the Minister. I want to say here that I speak for a constituency which has some of the best and some of the richest and some of the luckiest farmers in South i Africa; not because they have me for an M.P., but because they live in an area where they have some of the best rainfall in South Africa. At Mooi River there is a sale holding association which has topped during the last two years over R1 million per year in its sales. That is R1 million in one area. At Nottingham Road which is 10 miles away from Mooi River there is a sale holding association which is approaching that figure as well. In my own area, in Howick, some 20 miles further away, there is an association which has topped R1 million per year. I mention this, because I believe it is important to recognize that the drought is not prevalent throughout the whole of South Africa but there are other areas which have specific needs. There are needs which have to be met and there are needs of people who are, as I have said, among the best farmers of South Africa and who are intensely soil conservation conscious. I believe we are in that district moving to a stage where we have done most of the preliminary work of soil conservation as fat as farm planning and this type of thing is concerned. I want to complain to the hon. Deputy Minister or the hon. the Minister, whoever is handling the debate, about a certain case in my constituency. Throughout the past three or four years, the association at Mooi River went to the length of building a house for an extension officer. They hoped and they believed and it was an agreement with the department that a man would be appointed. However, no person came forth to fill that post. What has happened now is that the two areas have now been amalgamated. The Lions River division, my own home area, and the Mooi River division have now been amalgamated under the services of one extension officer. I cannot see how it can be expected that where you have these farmers who are progressive in every sense of the word, except politically, who are going ahead in a farming way as fast as they can possibly go to-day, and who need the services of an extension officer even more, should be thrown together under the services of one extension officer. The man who they had before is now further removed from them. I was interested indeed to see the report in the newspaper about the training of leader farmers. This is a new scheme and I welcome it. I think it is a step in the right direction. These leader farmers should preferably be young people, but who are certainly leaders in their own areas. They are now being trained to help in the extensions work. In our area we have the Cedara College for Agriculture, one of the most go-ahead plant breeding and grass breeding groups of people that there can be in South Africa. The main problem in our area has almost become the problem of the replacement of the total area of Ngongoni veld we have, because in the words of one of the officers of the department “you can just forget about Ngongoni. The more you write it off and plough it out and get rid of it, the better you are going to be.” I have seen at that college, and I take a particular interest in this matter, new strains of grass and new methods of application which, if they are carried out to their logical conclusion, can result in the intensification of agriculture in this area of Natal with its high rainfall. This will perhaps be a practical answer to the depopulation of stock in the Karoo and other areas. This is a good area for sheep in spite of the rain. This is what is now happening on a small scale, namely the intensification of farming and the tremendous development of irrigation in spite of the fact that we have such a high rainfall in this area. To-day we have emerging these new species of grass which are going to lead to the carrying capacity of our farms in those areas literally doubling and trebling within the next couple of years. I think the people working at that college deserve the highest praise. I believe that they deserve more than praise, and that they deserve financial backing by the department not only for the work they are doing, but for the extension of the work they are doing out into the farming areas.

And the salaries.

No, I am not talking about the salaries, although I would love to see it increased. Their work should not only be research for the sake of research. They are tremendously thrilled with what they have developed, but they are imbued with the idea that the farmers must share their findings. With this leader-farmer programme the hon. the Minister and his department have introduced, I think we at least have the germ of an idea which will help to convey this knowledge to the farming areas everywhere. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chair man, from what he hon. member for Mooi River has just said I could take it, and I do take it, that he represents a very good agricultural region. It is only a pity that I cannot say the same of that region’s member of Parliament. In addition he conducted a private conversation with the hon. the Minister on his part of the world, and to that I therefore cannot make any reply. I do however, want to address a few words to the hon. member for Newton Park.

The hon. member for Newton Park spoke for half an hour, and what came to my mind while I was listening to the hon. member’s speech were the words of Langenhoven: “If you have nothing to say, say it.” But he asked for half an hour in which to say it. The hon. member for Newton Park complained a great deal about the shortage of professional officers, extension officers, etc. I think the hon. member should first have acquainted himself with the true position. I do not think we have enough people, but I do not think any Government will ever be able to pat itself on the shoulder and say that it has done enough and that there are enough people available. Let us see, however, what the position is in respect of professional officers. In 1948 there were 891 in the service of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. To-day there are more than a thousand more, who are all highly-trained technical people. One does not pick those people off trees. One has to train them by means of major programmes. In the Department of Agricultural Technical Services there are 774 well-qualified research workers, plus a further 552 technicians who are daily engaged in research. Twenty per cent of all scientific research in the country is being undertaken in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Approximately one third of all spending on research in the country is being done by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Why does the hon. member, stranger in Jerusalem, come along and grumble out the old story in the same way year after year?

How are you going to solve it?

We are continually training more agricultural technicians. That is the only way in which one can solve the problem. One hatches Members of Parliament such as the hon. member for Newton Park out under hens, but not research workers. The hon. member complained about the increase in production costs. We accept that. He posed a long list of problems. But what did he say in addition to that? He said that he was afraid that there was very little we could do about it. I agree with him. There is very little that can be done about production costs. This is not something which one can always do something special about. He complained about a further problem, i.e. the large surpluses. But he did not suggest a solution either. I do not think he has a solution to suggest. But in this booklet of theirs which was distributed during the election, they suggested a solution as to how they were going to deal with these large surpluses which existed in respect of certain products. The way in which they are going to deal with it, is as follows:

We have to-night had another example of the initiative displayed by the hon. member for Newton Park. I do not think there is any exceptional initiative!

But I want to make haste and I should like to exchange a few words with the hon. the Deputy Minister on a problem which in my part of the world is a very real one, and not only in my part of the world, but throughout the country. This is the problem of the marketing of meat. When I think of the marketing of meat, it seems to me that one must divide the problem into two. The one is an immediate short-term problem, and the other is a long-term problem. The short-term problem is that of an immediate advance, a surplus, quotas and transportation. This is a problem which is caused in particular, as I see it, by three special factors. In the first instance it is due to the tremendous drought which makes farmers get all marketable cattle to the market as quickly as possible. The second aspect is the stock withdrawal scheme which has been introduced by the Government and which such a great number of farmers are already utilizing. That stock which is being withdrawn must also be marketed at that stage and as quickly as possible. A third reason is, as I see it, due to too much assistance. I may as well admit it. It is due to too much assistance in the form of subsidies and loans, which have had a different effect to what they were intended to have, wit i the result, owing to previous droughts, the livestock has not decreased as one would normally have expected during a drought, but has on the contrary, as a result of the assistance given by the Government, increased. In this way the number of sheep, particularly in the Cape, have increased by almost 5 million of the past five years. With this drought the farmer has found that the veld has not been given the necessary opportunity to recover and cannot carry those 5 million sheep. Those 5 million sheep have also been marketed. That is the short-term problem and I think that it will be possible to solve that problem in the short term. To a large extent, too, it will also be solved as soon as we have had proper rains throughout the country.

Then there is the long-term marketing of meat. To me there are two important aspects in this respect. One of these is extremely important. I do not think that we can eliminate the economic law of supply and demand in regard to this problem. I think that supply and demand must determine the price. I think that we only have one way of marketing meat, and that is marketing on the hook. Time does not allow me to mention them, but for various reasons I think that we in South Africa, at this stage at least, while we have a livestock which still differs so greatly, cannot in any way consider marketing on the hoof. In fact, we should rather aim at marketing on the hook. I also think that we need a floor price, because a floor price, constitutes certain advantages for us. This is, in the first instance, the method we will have to use to determine a long-term policy. It is in the second instance a guide for farmers, so that they can regulate their production. It will serve as a starting price, and it could also promote stability in the industry through the removal of surplus carcasses. I know that the hon. the Minister has appointed a commission. The report of the commission has not been published yet, but if I were to judge from the way in which meetings have been held by the South African Agricultural Union and in my part of the world in particular by the Free State Agricultural Union—they obtained their information from their representatives on the Meat Board —it is quite clear to me that a conflict must have arisen between the co-operative societies on the one hand and other capital resourceful bodies on the other in regard to who shall control the abattoirs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Smithfield was dealing with the matter of meat marketing. That will be dealt with by other speakers on this side.

He is the hon. member for Fauresmith.

I am sorry. I beg the hon. member for Smithfield’s pardon. He seems very upset. I was waiting with bated breath for the hon. member for Fauresmith to plead for a subsidy on eggs and tomatoes. I was expecting that to come at any minute, because he is a great user of the product.

Sir, I should like to continue with the question of the leader-farmer programme. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us some of the details as to how it is expected that this programme is going to be administered. There are a couple of suggestions I should like to make because I do feel that this is the one thing which can help to put across the message which I have explained already, namely the intensification of new pasture grasses, and so on. I believe that this is going to become more and more essential as time goes on. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is considering some sort of course at Cedara, for example, where these people can get to know of the research which is being done, and also get some kind of idea of how to put these ideas across to the farmer groups. I hope that I am correct, but as I understand it, these people will be used to address farmers’ meetings and farmers’ groups or to assist at farmers’ days. In addition, I wonder whether the Minister will be prepared to provide some kind of finance so that these leader farmers on their own farms can put into practice the ideas and the research which is being carried out to-day at Cedara.

I make no bones about it. The best way in which to get a district as a whole to accept ideas coming from the research staff is to see it in operation on the farms of leading members of the local community. From those I know, most of them appear to be young farmers. I feel it would be perhaps a bit too much to expect them to put this in practice on their own farms merely as an extension service. Obviously they will have to establish and prove that this is something which can work on their own particular farms. I take it the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us exactly how he thinks this is going to be done and how the message is going to get across. I want to say too that I think these people will play a vital part in the message of soil conservation. I think that the people in our area have a long way to go in so far as soil conservation is concerned. There are still those who one might call the black sheep, those who have not yet got the message that soil conservation not only pays but is absolutely vital to the …

You cannot call the farmers “black sheep”.

I was thinking of something else. I hate calling them “black sheep”. You know how I feel about black sheep. I certainly feel that these people can put the message of soil conservation across.

There is also the question o f the study groups. This is something which has arisen out of soil conservation districts where these study groups have been appointed. This has led to some very far reaching changes in the means of production of the farmers in those areas. These study groups go into the costs of producing a product in those particular areas. Underberg do milk, sheep and beef. They cost this out to the finest detail. They do everything humanly possible to establish a real cost. They try and establish what it costs a farmer to produce his products by various means. For instance, they try to establish the effect on milk production of green feed in the winter and silage and maize. Last year the hon. the Minister was very much in favour of these study groups. I believe that there is a need now for a research worker to be appointed by the Department who will go into the findings of all these study groups to try to collate the information and to extract significant trends …

I am doing that.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister so that he can listen nicely and quietly. I am asking for a research worker from the Department to be appointed specially. Now you are doing that. You have a research worker. I am asking for a specific research worker to go into the findings of all the study groups in order to try and extract the information … The hon. the Minister nods his head and I hope that that means and indicates that he has now appointed such a person. I look forward to him announcing …

I am doing that all the time.

I am not asking for something that you are doing all the time. I want a special person who will be charged with this specific purpose. I have put my idea across and I hope that I will get an answer from somebody on the opposite side.

I want to draw to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention a trend which is developing in the Midlands area of Natal where the replenishment of farmers is significantly becoming retired businessmen. You are finding far more retired businessmen coming into fanning than young people. This is in fact a very important development. These are people with capital. These people will admit that they know very little about fanning but are prepared to follow the latest methods and information. Furthermore they have the money to carry these things out on their farms. These leader fanners are the sort of people who will be accepted. They have a different status from the extension officer. I think it is important to realize that the leader farmer is a person accepted in his own community as an outstanding farmer. But he has as a result of that very fact a different status from the extension officer, however good and well accepted he might be. He remains nevertheless an official of the department. I think that the tying in together of the leader farmers and the new people coming into farming is something which is going to be of very great importance. Let me say that the new people coming into fanning, the businessmen, are not prepared to waste their money. These are people who will work out the cost to the last detail. Whether their sons will inherit their farms I do not know. I hope so, because those sons will inherit units which have been built up to a very high degree of production efficiency. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to tell us how the position is going to continue in the future. While I am dealing with this matter, I wonder whether we should not again plead with the Department for the establishment of units to carry out physical soil conservation measures. It is done by the Department of Bantu Administration. They are doing a tremendous amount of work in the Bantu areas in regard to the physical rehabilitation of the ground. I think, however, that there still exists in the white areas a tremendous need for work of this nature. I think that this can well be done by the Department. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not consider making this something which should be undertaken by the Department.

Mr. Chairman, the whole evening hon. members of the Opposition have been uttering words which have no meaning. I want to say straight out that it has been a long time since I last heard an hon. member ask for the privilege of the half hour and avail himself of a second opportunity to speak in order to say nothing. Thus the hon. member for Mooi River, who has just resumed his seat, advocated, inter alia, that a person should be appointed to take over the work of a Department. He advocated the appointment of a person to do certain work which has for many years now been done with great efficiency by an excellent Department. What utter nonsense is it not to advocate a thing like that!

May I ask you a question?

I am sorry I cannot reply to questions now; I only have 10 minutes at my disposal. I would gladly have crossed swords with that hon. member, but unfortunately time does not allow me to do so.

I want to discuss a matter this evening about which I feel particularly concerned and which I really find reprehensible. I want to refer to the conduct of certain Opposition members, particularly those of their workers, during the recent election. They went out of their way to incite the farming population and to play them off against the consumer population of South Africa. I think that is one of the most reprehensible tactics which anyone in South Africa could utilize. They tried something else as well. They tried to make our farming population dissatisfied with what is happening to them in South Africa. They did so by making certain nonsensical and absolutely empty statements to them, such as that the farmer must be assured of the interest on his investment plus a entrepreneur’s reward. Surely this is a common or garden economic law which applies to all business undertakings. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban (Point) must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

I want to ask them whether they admit that the fanner is part of a free economy. The farming population wants to be nothing else. They want to remain part of a free economy. Is our farming population going to allow their land prices to be controlled? Are they going to allow their farming methods to be determined for them? Are the farmers going to allow their line of farming to be determined for them? No, Sir, it is the most arrant nonsense I have ever heard in my life to try one minute to make the farmer dissatisfied with his position in a free economy and to go the next to other sectors of our population, the consumers, and say to them: “You are being neglected, the farmers are the favourites who are being spoonfed.” I find this absolutely reprehensible and I should like to say a few words about this aspect. I think it is utterly reprehensible.

Where is this happening? [Interjections.]

We find it time and again at meetings.

Order!

Although farming … [Interjections.]

Order! When I call hon. members to order I want them to obey.

Farming is part of a free economy but the Government has a responsibility towards all sectors of society and I want to mention a few of these. The first responsibility the Government accepts is responsibility for research and instruction. Sir, what do we find when we subject the instruction and research which is being made available for the farmers in South Africa to a close scrutiny? I do not have the time to furnish the figures to-night, but as far as this matter is concerned surely those hon. members are the last people to talk. Would they not be so kind as to look up the old figures and see what was spent in 1947 on research and instruction and then compare that to what is being done to-day? Sir, it is absolutely shameless of that party to make this statement. To go and gossip about it among the consumers is even more reprehensible.

Sir, I want to mention a second aspect. It is most certainly the task of a Government to accept responsibility for the protection of the soil of South Africa. One minute hon. members on the opposite side are saying that the farmers are being neglected, and the next they are saying that the farmers are being spoonfed. What is being done to-day to protect the soil of South Africa, and what was done. in the year 1947? I wish those hon. members would spend a little time examining the statistics and then tell me how many completed public works there were in 1947. Sir, if they go into those statistics, they will see the wonderful figure of nil. If they go into how much that Government had paid out in subsidies, they shall once again see the wonderful figure of nil. If they go into how much loans were paid out in 1947, they will once again find the wonderful figure of nil. Then it is these people who have the temerity to sit here making a noise across the floor of the House when we point out these facts to them. I think hon. members on that side of the House should creep under their benches from shame.

Sir, there is another matter to which I should like to refer in the minute left at my disposal, and that is disaster assistance. Sir, as soon as any industry is struck by a disaster, the Government comes forward with disaster assistance. It did so during these periods of drought. These droughts were nothing but a disaster, and as the drought increased in extent, the Government came forward with one measure after another. Firstly, it came forward with a rebate on the transportation of fodder and animals. After that, it came forward and said: “That is not enough; I am now going to grant fodder loans to the farmers at a low rate of interest.” The Government thereupon came forward with fodder subsidies and loans, and so we have kept on helping the farmers.

Is this a free economy?

Sir, if there is anyone who may speak on behalf of a community which has been sorely stricken by this tremendous drought, then it is I, and I want to say here to-night that my farmers, in contrast to the Opposition who merely sit and find fault, are grateful. I want to convey to the hon. the Minister to-night the gratitude of the farmers of the north-west. They demonstrated their gratitude at the polls. Sir, 500 United Party supporters voted for the National Party there in the recent election, and then hon. members on that side want to come and speak on behalf of the farmers here! On the morning of the polls members of the United Party told me that our majority may perhaps be 3,000, and I agreed with them. Going strictly by party members, this should have been the case, but then 450 United Party members voted for me and for the Government out of gratitude for what the Government has been doing for the farmers in recent times. If hon. members on that side hope to get the farmers’ votes in this way, then they are underestimating in a disgraceful manner, and are insulting, the intelligence of the farmers. Our farmers want to remain part of a free economy, but they are grateful for the assistance which has been made available to them in past years. They are grateful for the wonderful way in which this Government has accommodated them and helped them during these years. They are grateful that these were not mere words. They are also grateful that the Government still recognizes them as individuals. [Interjections.] Sir, if you would allow me a little injury time in view of the noise on that side of the House I just want to point out that the Government has done much in respect of the high rates of interest over the years through lowered rates of interest on Land Bank loans, and through agricultural credit. Farmers who were unable to receive assistance there, will now be able to receive assistance as a result of this latest concession which has been made by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want hon. members on the opposite side to run and gossip and say that it is only the farmers who are being helped. Sir, when the town-dwellers were experiencing difficulties with housing, a subsidy was made available to them. Why employ that reprehensible method? I want hon. members of the Opposition to remember that the farmers will never, and not for anything, abandon their place in our free economy. After all, they will never go and farm on a kibbutz.

May I ask a question?

No, the hon. member knows that my time is very limited. [Interjections.] It seems as if I have been getting under the skin of those hon. members and I am very glad about that because I think they deserve it. I think their behaviour during the last election, to put it very mildly, was reprehensible. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to be the member for Benoni and a great honour to be able to be a member of the House of Assembly. I hope that I will be able to make a contribution on behalf of the public to promote their well-being in so far as their health, security, prosperity and happiness are concerned, and that I shall be worthy of their confidence.

I want to discuss the National Parks Board, which falls under the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. I want to congratulate the National Parks Board on the dedicated work they are doing to preserve our landscape, our flora and fauna for posterity, and to promote a better knowledge and love for these things. They are doing very important conservation work. At least two South Africans species of buck have already been irretrievably wiped out and placed on the list of extinct animals. They are the Great Cape Blue Buck, related to the sable antelope, and the genuine quagga of the Karoo flats. Then, too, we could perhaps add the black-maned lion as well as the Cape hartebeest, if they are accepted as sub-species. There were approximately ten wild life species in South Africa which were on the danger list, most of which are now safe as a result of the conservation consciousness of the farmers and the provincial administrations which protected them until the National Parks Board could eventually take over. The bontebok, the mountain zebra, the black wildebeest and the white rhinoceros are reasonably safe to-day. There are, however, still a few varieties which are becoming increasingly scarce in South Africa and which are still on the danger list, such as the pangolin or scaly anteater, the cheetah, the oribi, the reed buck, the tsessebe and the roanantelope. The natural beauty of our country has already, to a large extent, been destroyed by the wasteful exploitation which is a by-product of our prosperity, has been destroyed I by over-grazing and soil erosion, by the holesand dumps of the mining industry, through ever-increasing urbanization and growing industries. I want to advocate that the beauty spots of our country should be sought out, and, under the control of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure be preserved as nature reserves and national parks, and that other exceptionally suitable land should be bought up, which can be preserved as State-owned landuntil it can be developed as nature reserves and game parks. There are people who feel that the eight National Parks in South Africa are. already too many. I am speaking on behalf of thousands of South Africans, nature lovers and tourists, who feel that provision should be made now for the future for more nature reserves and places of tranquility in the veld. Over the years there have been many examples of State-owned nature conservation land which has even been deproclaimed to comply with the demands of the farming population. I am thinking, for example, of the Kathu forest between Kuruman and Sishen with its age-old camelthorn trees. In the hands of private owners, these will be destroyed by the dropping water table and the axe. There is the Dongola Game reserve along the Limpopo in the North, with its great variety of wild life, which was deproclaimed to help the farmers. Over the years, the farmers in those dry areas have hardly been able to make a livelihood. Now that it is too late and the area has been over-grazed and the wild life eradicated, we realize that it may perhaps have been more suitable for game. During the next 30 years South Africa’s population will increase more than two-fold. Some projections put it as high as a total population of 55 million at the turn of the century. We will have to make provision at this early stage for their future requirements in the way of nature reserves. Most game reserves are already too full, so that one has to book months before the time, and during the busy holiday periods one cannot even find accommodation there. In the Tzitzikama National Park, for example, visitors are limited to 400 per day. There are numerous lovely nature conservation areas which are being threatened by man’s violation of nature. I am thinking here of the smaller jewels which are privately owned land or are to be found in urban areas, and which consists of river banks, waterfalls, and ravines which the provinces are unable to buy up because they do not have the finances, but which ought to be preserved by the State for its citizens and posterity. In the Northern Cape there is Witsand, a geological wonder south of Olifantshoek, and the roaring sand dunes and a tarn surrounded by a sea of red sand on the western side of the Langeberg which ought to be in State possession. There is uncertainty as to the future of the Langebaan lagoon at Saldanha. This is the home of more than 60 different species of waterfowl and sea birds, inter alia, the rare Bartailed Godwit, which probably comes from Alaska and spends the summer here, to say nothing of all the other land birds, and of the importance of Saldanha as a breeding place for fish. Plans which are being drawn up for a housing development scheme and concessions for a salt pan are alarming many nature lovers.

The few remaining Knysna elephants ought to be preserved. Mr. Nick Carter has only recently completed a survey, which took a year to make, for the Eastern Province branch of the S.A. Wild Life Protection Society. He recommended that part of the Knysna Forest where the elephants make their habitat, should be enclosed with a high fence, so that they can be preserved for posterity. A hundred years ago there were still 500 elephants left, but now their numbers have dwindled until there are only 11 left, three bulls, four cows, two of unknown sex, and two calves. They are to be found in the Hakerville Forest on State-owned land under the control of the Department of Forestry, but poachers, probably smallholding farmers, are still shooting at the elephants to protect their smallholdings and gardens. The elephants should be fenced in with an Armstrong fence.

I want to join my plea to that of Mr. Nick Carter and address a serious request to the Government to the effect that part of our unusually beautifully natural forest, together with the remaining 11 Knysna elephants, should be declared a National Park.

Then, too, I want to thank the National Parks Board for the fact that they have abandoned their idea of setting up the Kruger statue. As a good South African I revere the memory of Paul Kruger, but we feel that the remaining nature conservation areas and national parks should be preserved in order to preserve nature and the Creation in its original form so that our children can also see it. I should like to see such a Kruger statue being erected just outside the Kruger National Park or in one of the camps, but one would like to see the veld remain as it was when it was created.

I want to congratulate the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, on his first speech in this House. I know that he is a person from the rural areas, and I do not want to wish him a very long sojourn in this House, but in fact a pleasant sojourn for as long as he will be serving in this House. I know him as a person from the rural areas, and I know that he is interested in the rural interests, and I trust that his contribution in this House in the future will be such that it will only benefit the general prosperity of our country and its population. I extend to him a very cordial welcome.

At the moment the agricultural sector is being sorely tried. Every year the agricultural sector is being struck harder by adversity, especially drought conditions. There may be many reasons for this, reasons in which we ourselves may be instrumental, but we can say we know the Government has in fact done its duty towards our farmers in general. If we take the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we find that last year we had 26 districts which were declared pasture-emergency areas; this year we have 145 such districts. Up to June last year we had five districts which received subsidies; this year we have 145 such districts. Now we can see how the state of emergency has assumed increasingly worse proportions as far as our farmers are concerned. But in the past two years the Government provided and granted a great deal of assistance to the farmers. We find that last year they contributed approximately R250 million to the agricultural sector, and we know that this year they once again contributed approximately R230 million. Having regard to this, we cannot fling at the Government the reproach that it has been neglecting its duty towards the agricultural sector and the farmers of South Africa. We know that we have these drought conditions and what they are attributable to, and in view of the fact that the hon. member for Newton Park has recently been talking so much about agriculture, I want to ask him whether he can give us any prediction as to what the situation will be next year as far as the drought is concerned.

I can tell you when the Nats are going to lose.

Stop evading a question which is put to you in a reasonable and fair manner. You expect the Government to take steps so as to assist the farmers for an unforeseeable period in regard to which we have just as little knowledge as the hon. member has. I want him to tell us whether he has that knowledge and whether he can make a prediction for us.

I want to speak to the hon. the Minister in the interests of our farmers and about the marketing of our stock. In anticipation of the report of the commission, I trust that to a certain extent provision will be made in future for our method of marketing to include two factors. The first is that we obtain the assurance of an increased floor price for our slaughter-stock, and the second is finding a method whereby we can market our animals when they are ready for marketing. If we can meet these two requirements, I am sure that the Minister may rest assured that we shall have stability and security in our agricultural sector and in the meat trade.

Then I want to say that the hon. Opposition has in recent times done us a great deal of harm. I do not think there is anybody in this House who has done us more harm than did the hon. member for Newton Park. Over the past number of years, and before the past election as well, he did our farmers endless harm by trying to create the impression with them that our farmers no longer had security. He tried to disparage us with all financial organizations so that we might not obtain any assistance in the future.

That is not true.

There is yet another thing they did in my constituency recently. They exploited the labour of the farmers for the benefit of a political swindle. They advanced the argument that the problems of the farmers lay in the fact that they did not have sufficient labour. In the rural areas they came forward with the propaganda—please note, in the rural areas and not here in the city—that the National Government was spending more on the black people than on the Whites of South Africa. Now, for the sake of the record, I want to ask him a question to-night. Does he agree with that propaganda made by the candidates and speakers in my constituency?

But, surely, it is your own branch members who are saying that.

No, I want a reply from the hon. member. If they did that, does the hon. member agree with it, yes or no?

What do I have to do with your branch members?

But when the hon. member went there to hold those meetings, he did not know this. To-night a harmless and a fair question is being put to the hon. member. Does he refuse to reply to it? I know it will be of no avail, but I want to put one question to the hon. member and the hon. Opposition. We farmers have a wonderful possession, and it is a possession with which we do not want to part for anything in the world. This possession is the sense of honour of the farmer. To-night I want to make an appeal to the Opposition, namely to help us to preserve that honour of the farmer and not to disparage it on every platform or wherever it suits the Opposition.

I have confidence in the Government, I have confidence in the Government’s policy and I have confidence in our farmers, because we have adopted the attitude that we do not want to become dependent upon the State, but that as far as possible we want to go under our own steam-and. stand on our own feet. For this ideal I want to convey to-night my thanks to our Government and to the hon. the Minister for his sympathetic consideration in recent times and over the past number of years in the interests of the farmers of South Africa, his sympathetic consideration which has led to increasingly more and greater assistance being granted to the farmers. I wish I could mention a few aspects, but unfortunately time does not permit me to do so. I want to say here to-night that there is no other organization which has a more fragile economy than has the agricultural sector, the reason for this being that we are dependent upon rain. When Almighty. God closes the floodgates for rain, this economy is fragile because there is nothing we can do about it, and then we simply have to wait until the rains come again, as is happening now.

I want to conclude, for we shall be afforded another opportunity of discussing these matters more fully. I just want to say this. The late Uncle Willie Hofmeyr concluded a speech of his with this thought: “If one wants to see something in life, one should stand still like a believer”. This is also necessary in this period of trial for our farmers. When we stand still and look back, we are grateful, too. When we stand still and look up, we are devout. When we stand still and look ahead, we have courage. This is what the farmers of South Africa are clinging to. We shall go to meet this period of trial with the greatest sacrifices, but also with the greatest faith in the agricultural policy and in this Government.

Mr. Chairman, as a newcomer to this House I, too, should like to associate myself with my colleagues who as new members spoke here before me, and I want to do so by expressing my gratitude and appreciation towards the friends here. In accordance with the rules of procedure I should refer to them as hon. members, and I want to thank them for their friendliness and the pleasant attitude they have adopted towards me. Not only have I experienced this on the part of hon. members, but also on the part of officials of all ranks in and around this House. The helpfulness and generosity which are in evidence, speak volumes, and one is glad and feels it is good that this is the case, for life always has its compensations. At the moment we are experiencing inclement weather conditions at an inopportune stage. Some people call it nasty weather, but I am a little hesitant about referring to it as nasty weather. For years now we have been experiencing continual droughts, and when inclement weather is accompanied by rain, one is somewhat chary of describing it in harsher terms than to say that these are merely unpleasant weather conditions. Apart from the weather we have here, there was also the disappointing second rugby test here, and all these things have been instrumental in even affecting one physically, so that at times one even loses one’s voice. However, we know that we have to become immunized and acclimatized in difficult circumstances, and I am making my speech at a stage when, in fact, we are discussing agricultural matters, which are so dependent upon the elements. Actually, I did not want to speak on this Vote, for I would rather have spoken on the Water Affairs Vote, but an observation was made here which I found particularly striking and which revealed a measure of indifference to the agricultural sector. I do not want to level reproaches or make political remarks. I merely want to give my impression. When the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned a certain amount which had been allocated, this comment “how much of that is going to the farmers?” was made. It is circumstances like these which are clouding the relationship between the producer and the consumer. There is a want of understanding for the Problems and circumstances under which the farmer has to supply his produce. Sir, if there were a better disposition, if there were concord in the communities, it could only be to the benefit of everybody, for the consumer is dependent upon the producer. But wrong impressions are being created for the man who has to pay the price for the produce of the farmer. In this way it happens that the most insignificant incidents cause the position of assistance to the farmer to be blown up tremendously. Then it is said that the farmer lives on subsidies. He is accepted or regarded as prosperous type who lives a comfortable and peaceful life. The struggle which the farmer must wage, is a struggle against the elements. Nobody has any control over them. The farmer has to wage that struggle independently. Whenever the Government grants assistance, it is gratefully accepted and it is used in the best and most profitable manner. As I know what the position is in the constituency I represent, which is entirely dependent upon the farming community and upon the agricultural industry as such, I can speak knowledgeably about the association with the Ministers, and I appreciate the problems and the difficulties of the farmer in virtually every district of our country. I feel convinced that the Ministers in question, who are practical farmers themselves, are so conversant with these matters that there really is no problem which we can put to them as being something new. That is why I feel that we are fortunate that in that respect it is possible for us to have their sound approach and assistance. We can talk as much as we please and with the best will in the world, but we shall never be able to do anything about the adversities encountered in the farming industry. Disasters, pests and droughts will always be with us. This is how it was in the past, and this is how it will be again. Nobody can prevent these things, neither the Ministers nor the goodwill of this House. It is an industry in which we have to brave those problems which are staring us in the face. It is for that reason that we must have that goodwill from every section of the community. There must be like-mindedness and there must be a spirit of sacrifice, a general willingness to help one another, so that we may achieve success.

It has been said that in the year 2000 we shall have money, but that we shall not be able to buy food with it. I am convinced that if the means are made available to the farmer, the medium class farmer and the small farmer will ensure that there will never be a food shortage in this country. Reference was made to fertilizer which was being used injudiciously. Well, there are certain fortunate farmers who are in a position to spend so much on fertilizer that they can use fertilizer excessively, or who do not use the right type of fertilizer. But nothing was said about those thousands of rands which the farmer invests in his land in order to harvest a crop, only to find subsequently that there is nothing to harvest. Not only his seed is lost, but also his whole crop. It is a total loss. When we want to comment here on the assistance granted to the farmers, all I ask is that we should be so kind as to take into consideration those problems and the struggle the farmer is waging, and that we should encourage him rather than thwart him.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure this evening to be able to congratulate the new member for Waterberg on his maiden speech. It is quite obvious to us here that he knows his subject very well. He is obviously very interested in agriculture. As he pointed out, he would have preferred making a speech on water affairs. It is appropriate that he comes from Waterberg, a famous constituency—I would almost say a notorious constituency. I wish him well. He mentioned that he is happy here. I have always believed that it all depends on the individual as to whether he will find happiness in this place. However, I wish him well for the future.

I should now like to come back to one or two previous speakers. The hon. member for Ladybrand spoke earlier this evening on the high price of agricultural land. His words were: “Die pryse van grond styg nog al die tyd”. He went on to mention that even in the Free State agricultural land was being sold at the high price of R200 per morgen, believed that it all depends on the individual Therefore he believed that the farmers should have no complaints and that all was well in agriculture, due to the fact that land prices were rising all the time. I know many farmers who are to-day prepared to sell their farms. Their farms are in the market. I know of a particular farmer who was offered only last week, on Saturday, R30 per morgen. However, he dare not sell under R70 per morgen because he is bonded to that extent. This is what the farmers are owing on their land. They cannot sell for less than the amount that they are bonded for. I do not believe that the farmers in the Free State are any better off financially than farmers in any other province. I know what they are owing the coops, the banks, the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The farmer cannot sell for less than he is bonded for. If farmers were selling land at R200 per morgen in the Free State, they must be bonded for that price. I know of very few farmers who can to-day sell agricultural land and make a profit over and above what they owe on that land.

Who buys that land?

I am sorry, but I do not have the time to answer questions. The hon. member went on to say that there were fertilizer companies who were, to use the English expression, cashing in on the agricultural industry. If this is so, he is cutting directly across the line taken by the hon. the Deputy Minister during the Censure Debate. I should like to quote from the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister on fertilizers. He said (Hansard, No. 1-1970 (2), Column 392):

He then went on to say (Column 392):

He said that the value had been increased by 40 per cent due to the proper utilization of fertilizers, but he went on to say: “ … except in the case of wool”. The hon. member for Ladybrand was therefore cutting right across what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said. The hon. member said that the use of fertilizers was being abused, and the Deputy Minister said that, due to the fact that we are administering fertilizers on agricultural land by the correct methods, production is increasing. I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister, but it is strange that an hon. member on that side should say one thing and that the Deputy Minister should then say something else.

The hon. member for Prieska, who is not in the House at the moment, mentioned that my colleague, the hon. member for Newton Park, was doing the farming industry an injustice. The more he said about agriculture, the more injustice was being done to the farming industry.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just mention one point. I want to come back to the speech the hon. the Deputy Minister made during the Censure Motion debate. He indicated that the Government was doing a lot for the farmers and said the following in regard to the stock reduction scheme—

This, with respect, is an injustice to the agricultural industry. I am referring to this particular statement. I was hoping that the hon. the Minister would qualify his statement. It is quite correct when he says that the units reduced were being subsidized. But then the hon. the Deputy Minister went on to say that 1,500 sheep were subsidized at 20 cents per sheep and that a farmer would therefore receive a subsidy of R3.600 per annum. In the first place this is only in respect of land which has been declared a third stage drought stricken emergency area. This is the worst stage.

Only on ewes.

Only ewes. For a full 12 months he would receive R3,600 subsidy. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister did not go further and say that while the farmer received this R3,600 subsidy he invariably created a debt on the other hand of R3.600.

How?

Because to buy feeding for 1,500 ewes he has to spend 40 cents to get 20 cents subsidy.

For that he is getting a loan at five per cent.

That does not matter. He can get a loan from his bank at nine per cent too if he does not want to take a loan from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. I know about the five per cent loan. The fact remains that he is getting a loan for the rest of the R3.600 be it at nine per cent or five per cent or at whatever rate he may get it. The farmer therefore remains where he was. He got R3,600 in subsidy while he had to spend another R3,600 in order to receive the subsidy.

It is a Government contribution.

I will be fair and admit that it was possible for him to maintain condition of the stock or that they were kept alive. But it is no financial assistance to the farmer. He has only got to farm that land for the full 12 months.

[Inaudible].

No. This is an injustice. In that same speech the hon. the Deputy Minister went further and accused my leader of misleading the young farmer and chasing the young farmer off the land in a speech he made at the Agricultural Union Congress in East London. It is in Hansard. I do not intend quoting it. This is misleading the young farmer. The young farmer is not getting all that assistance which the hon. the Deputy Minister maintains he is getting.

He is getting it.

He is not getting it. He has had to create a debt to get a subsidy. That is what is happening.

It is still a Government contribution.

The hon. member for Fauresmith spoke on a subject which is very close to my heart, namely the marketing of our meat and all agricultural produce in South Africa. I believe that we must evolve a scheme in South Africa. It is no use coming here and saying “dankie” to the Minister. We are getting nowhere. I have heard nothing constructive from that side of the House. And believe you me, the agricultural industry is in a very serious state of affairs; indeed. [Time expired].

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London (North) raised a few objections. One of them was that land prices were as high as they were because the farmers had such heavy mortgage burdens. This is my conclusion, for I could not gather properly what his accusation was in this regard. I shall leave the matter at that, for if the mortgages are as high as that, there is nothing we can do about the matter. Then he went on to accuse the hon. the Minister of having furnished misleading figures in respect of the assistance granted to farmers. In his own words he then made the same calculation. His criticism is that the fodder loans are being granted at 5 per cent, whereas the farmer can obtain from his bank a loan at 9 per cent. I have never heard such ingratitude. The farming community of our country are very grateful for this exceptional assistance which has been granted to them, especially in view of the fact that they are receiving this assistance in a time of emergency. This withdrawal scheme was introduced because nature had been disrupted as a result of the assistance granted to farmers by the State. We know that whenever there were major droughts in the past, such as those we have been experiencing over the past few years, stock die in their thousands. After the drought stock numbers are low and the veld has the opportunity to rehabilitate itself. As a result of the assistance granted by the State, the stock have remained alive and there has been a disturbance of the natural process. Whereas five years age, before the drought, we had 32 million sheep in the country, we have roughly 37 million sheep left at the moment. In other words, the number of sheep has increased by 5 million in spite of the fact that we have just had such a serious drought. As a result the normal course of nature has been disturbed. Now the veld cannot get the opportunity to rehabilitate itself after the drought, because the number of stock was not reduced. For that reason the State has gone out of its way to grant assistance. The Government instituted this withdrawal scheme. In terms of the normal natural process the number of stock normally kept on the veld should have been reduced by one-third, and by means of this withdrawal scheme that one-third of the stock is being withdrawn and subsidized. The farming community is very grateful for this. This is assistance granted from a national point of view, because soil conservation is of the greatest importance to our veld. We must give nature a chance to rehabilitate itself. This chance is now being given by means of this withdrawal scheme.

Then I want to refer to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. In recent years this Department has been doing research which has been very beneficial to the agricultural sector. There is very clear proof of the benefits this has implied to the farmer. Take our maize production as an example. We know that years ago our maize yield was more or less seven bags per morgen, but after proper research had been carried out in respect of fertilization and the best hybrid seed had been made available, our maize production was increased from seven bags a morgen to 17 bags. Sir, this is the practical result of research which has been done.

Under a good Government.

Yes, under a good Government. We want to convey our sincere thanks to the technical officers who carried out this research.

Take our veterinary service. We know that years ago there were extensive areas in our country which were unsuitable for stock-farming. In certain parts red-water and heart-water and, in other parts, bovine parabotulism and anthrax had reached such grave proportions that herds of cattle were wiped out completely. As a result of research and technical assistance and the provision of vaccine, those areas have at present become sought after cattle regions of our country. As a result of the provision of vaccine by Onderstepoort and guidance by the technical officers, it is possible for people to farm there to-day with great ease and without any stock losses. Sir, we cannot thank those people enough for those remedies which they have made available to us. I want to pay the highest tribute to our veterinary division.

Another matter I want to refer to, is that of termites. We know that our people went in for conservation farming and built up their farms, their pasture lands, to such an extent that the vegetation became luxuriant. But all of a sudden that vegetation was destroyed by termites. There were no effective remedies for combating termites. We had remedies such as sodium fluosilicate and similar remedies which were absolutely ineffective. In the meantime research was done, and to-day remedies are available—I am referring here, inter alia, to the harakiri—by means of which termites can be exterminated and which are very effective. By means of these remedies we are able today to combat termites; these remedies are of tremendous value to us.

But, Sir, the difficulty is that these technical officers are being enticed away from the Department by companies. I am referring here, inter alia, to oil companies, fertilizer companies, etc.; these people who are very valuable to us as guidance officers and as technical officers and researchers, are being enticed away through higher salaries which are offered to them. They are virtually “bought” by the companies, and then they are used in services which are of no value to us. Sir, every farmer must buy fertilizer; it is not necessary to go to him in order to sell fertilizer to him; he must buy it. The same applies to his fuel; he must buy diesel oil. Thousands of these people are being enticed away from the Department, where they could be exceptionally valuable to our country, where they could render exceptional services to the agricultural sector, and now they are being used as salesmen visiting farms on behalf of these companies, and they virtually become a nuisance to the farmers. It happens that three or four of them visit a farmer in one morning. Sir, we know that the farmer is hospitable and that he is fond of receiving any guest with the greatest measure of hospitality. Now he is being harassed by these persons who descend on his farm in large numbers, not to render any service, but to waste the farmer’s time. In a time when we need our technical manpower so very badly, the services of these experts are being used in those spheres and the hospitality of the farmer is virtually being abused. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss an industry which I believe is second only to gold and that is the wool industry in South Africa.

The golden fleece.

It is accepted by everybody that wool to-day is going through a very difficult period in South Africa, Australia and in the other few wool-producing countries of the world. We have heard so much recently about the new railway line which is to be built from Sishen to Saldanha Bay to transport manganese and iron ore to that port. We know that iron ore producers are being given tremendous concessions with regard to rail tariffs. They have been granted big reductions in rail tariffs to promote the export of iron ore, which is not nearly as important an earner of foreign exchange as the wool industry. I was disappointed to find that in this Budget the wool industry was not given more consideration as far as tariffs are concerned. We were all very disappointed. Sir, while on the wool industry I want to deal too with the uneconomic price that the farmer is getting to-day for his wool. It is certainly not paying the wool producer to produce wool to-day. If the farmer has to produce wool at a price of under 35 cents per pound, then he is losing and this means that the industry is uneconomic. But what is happening, Sir? The Wool Commission under the present Government is not helping the wool industry at all. Only last season I attended a very important and large wool auction sale where eight type eights were being sold. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows what I am speaking about. The Wool Commission bought the first type eights that was put up to auction; I do not quite remember the price; it was not very much. The other seven type eights which were auctioned after that were sold at a lower price and the Wool Commission did not buy a single one.

Is that the Government’s fault?

Yes. That is why I am talking about it here. If it was not the Government’s fault I would not be talking about it here; I would go to the Wool Commission. The point is that to-day under this Government, as the price of wool drops, so does the reserve of the Wool Commission drop; it drops all the time, Sir, the Wool Commission to-day has R35 million in the bank; that is the size of its accumulated funds, but in spite of this they buy very, very little wool and the more the market price drops the more they drop their reserve price. Their reserve price is always just below the market price. Sir, the hon. member over there shakes his head, but you can talk to any farmer about this.

It remains at 28 cents.

Sir, I want to make this point. If there is one man in South Africa who put the wool industry on the map in South Africa it was the then Chairman of the Wool Board, Dr. J. H. Moolman, the hon. member for East London (City). We must face the fact that there is only one man who put the wool industry on the map and that is the hon. member for East London (City). But what happened? At least the hon. member and the Wool Board never lost out on it and everybody was happy, because they set a floor price for the year and the French and the Japanese and the American buyers could come, but the floor price was there. But what is happening to-day? These buyers are very clever and they know what is going on. You cannot fool them and unless the Wool Commission follow the same policy that was introduced by the hon. member for East London (City), this industry is doomed.

Is that the fault of the Government?

Yes, I blame the Government and the Wool Commission.

But Dr. Moolman was the Chairman of the Wool Commission under this Government.

Yes, but what did the Government have to say when he wa9 Chairman, and what did Mr. Gerhard Bekker, the then hon. member for Cradock, have to say about him? You only have to read Hansard to see. And what has happened? This Government cannot do any better. They are following the wrong policy under the present Government.

But it was the same Government which was in power when Dr. Moolman was the Chairman.

Yes, but he had a different policy. I hope the Minister will reply to this and tell us why they changed their policy in regard to the floor price. It has changed and the hon. the Minister cannot deny, it, and that is the trouble with the wool market to-day. The hon. member for Fauresmith mentioned the meat market, and there, too, we are in trouble. I have attended many agricultural conferences. I attend the Eastern Agricultural Union congresses regularly, and resolutions come before those congresses each year about meat marketing. I cannot understand why we cannot evolve a scheme to include a bigger cold storage system throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. Cold storage on a national scale is the answer. Wien there is a flush season and we have not only meat but all kinds of farm produce available, this can be rushed to the nearest cold storage depot and all this produce can be put into cold storage and from there the markets can be fed.

It is being done in the Argentine and you only have to go to a little state like Swaziland to see that the people there have the answer, cold storage on a national scale. We have had representations here in Parliament. I have had farmers here interviewing me on this problem. Why cannot the Government subsidize a combine or a syndicate or a co-operative to build cold storages on a national scale, cold storages involving per unit R200,000 at different strategic points of the country? It is being done all over the world, even in smaller countries than we are. But what happens is that when we have a drought everybody rushes their stock to the market and there is a glut on the market. I have experienced it myself time and again, and there is no cold storage. The market depends on supply and demand, and if there is no demand for the stock we saw what happened in Johannesburg last year, and also at East London. The stock has to stand over sometimes for 10 days. It is time we started to think in terms of cold storage throughout this country. It is the only answer. The Argentine is one of the largest meat producing countries in the world, and they could not do it without cold storage.

Here we cannot even get trucks.

I know what the problems were in Swaziland with the quarantine they had to go through at one time and to-day they have found the answer in cold storage. I have seen it myself there. I wish hon. members opposite would go and visit Swaziland. [Time expired.]

Having listened to the debate on agriculture this afternoon, I cannot but congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister on the confidence expressed in them by that side of the House. I say that this is a motion of confidence in the sense that since this afternoon up to to-night not one single word of criticism has been voiced against the policy of the Government as far as agriculture is concerned. No positive criticism or representations against this Government’s policy have been put forward, and this speaks volumes and can only be interpreted as an absolute motion of confidence in the Minister and the Deputy Minister. Even the hon. member for East London (North), who has just resumed his seat, contradicted himself by saying that Dr. Moolman had led the wool industry to certain heights, but the hon. member forgot that Dr. Moolman was the chairman of the Wool Board while this National Party was in power, and that it was with the aid of the National Party that such extensive progress was made in the wool industry.

And under the same Minister.

Yes, this also bears testimony to a good Minister. Furthermore, since he spoke about the wool industry, he should also call to mind once again the past number of years and especially what was done for the wool farmer in last year’s Budget. This Government is doing everything in its power to allow this industry, too, to prosper and to make progress. We are also calling to mind once again the visit the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister paid to the wool farmers of the Karoo recently, and what is now being done for the wool farmers again.

But in these times we have in the agricultural industry many pests and plagues and we have this terrible drought which is devastating the country. A great deal is being dome by the authorities in order to look after these things, but there may nevertheless be other bottlenecks which one does not always keep in mind, and to-night I want to pause at one of them in particular. It is a bottleneck which is being experienced and yet is not always brought to the notice of the people, although it is very much talked about at meetings of district agricultural unions. Only the other day a district agricultural union in my contituency approached me in regard to this problem in order to hear what the Government could do about it. This is the danger of plastic waste, which is so detrimental to our stock industry. Of course, we are living in a plastic age. It has brought about tremendous development in the country and in the world, and one cannot ignore it. Plastic has so many advantages that it is an impossible task to mention them here, nor is this the place to do so. But there are, in addition, disadvantages which have been brought along by plastic and which are hitting the agricultural industry in particular. These are dangers which do not only crop up sporadically; they crop up quite often, but these dangers are not brought to the notice of people very often. Plastic waste is probably one of the principal causes for thousands of head of cattle dying in the country every year. A certain farmer in the Waterberg has a farm which is for the most part infected with gifblaar, but he told me the other day that in spite of the gifblaar, he had lost more head of cattle as a result of their eating plastic material than he has as a result of the gifblaar. The suffering of an animal which has eaten plastic waste, is terrible. The animal becomes leaner; this goes on for a long time. It becomes increasingly leaner and later on it no longer wants to eat at all, and still later its breathing becomes more and more difficult until finally, after protracted suffering, it dies. Plastic bags are probably one of the major causes of mortality amongst animals because of eating plastic waste. Furthermore, there are the plastic bags in which tobacco and sweets are packed. We call to mind the fertilizer bag. That packing material is probably necessary in the pattern of life today, and one would not be able to take it away, but one should also have regard to the dangers involved. A very good cattle farmer will always see to it that his farm is free of this danger. He will urge his labourers to pick up plastic waste all the time. But unfortunately there are many people, and here I am thinking in particular of the townspeople and of the Bantu, who are not aware of this danger. Perhaps it is time for one to expose this ignorance and to try to educate these people in order that something may be done about this matter. It is especially those farmers with farms bordering on public roads who are more subject to this danger, for motorists are very prone to throwing out this waste through the car window, from where it then blows over to the veld of the farmer where it is subsequently picked up and eaten by the cattle, which eventually die of it. I appreciate that it is extremely difficult to do something about this matter by way of legislation. It is perhaps an impossible task, but perhaps it is a good thing for one to discuss it and to bring to the notice of the people the danger of this matter from time to time. I could perhaps put forward a few positive suggestions which could be considered and elaborated on. In the first place, one sometimes wonders whether it should be made an offence to scatter or leave behind this plastic waste in an injudicious manner. I can still remember very well that as young lads we were warned against burweed and told that ft at weed was not allowed to grow anywhere, otherwise one would be fined. It can also be made an offence to leave behind and scatter this plastic waste in an injudicious manner. In the second place, wide publicity may be given in our newspapers and in our magazines, especially in the magazines of the Department of Agriculture, in which the danger of plastic waste may be brought to the notice of the people. Perhaps talks can also be held on the radio in order to draw people’s attention to this danger. Notices in Bantu shops and Bantu bars may also help to certain extent to eliminate this evil. We can also do this by way of educating our children at school. The children may be taught at school to pick up a piece of plastic when they see it lying around, as it is a danger to the animals and also to people—I am thinking in particular of the children and the babies who may also pick it up.

One could perhaps, in conclusion, make the observation that the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal have an ordinance in terms of which it is most strictly forbidden to throw out refuse material through the windows of vehicles. It is also forbidden to leave refuse lying about at camping sites. The Minister could perhaps, through his Department, request the Provincial Administration to see to it that this ordinance is implemented more strictly so as to combat this evil as well. I have here a newspaper clipping in which a farmer wrote that he had lost eight head of cattle which had eaten plastic waste; in addition, two more were on the point of dying as a result of eating this plastic waste. A short while ago I aslo read in another newspaper about a similar incident where there was a high mortality rate amongst stock because of their having eaten plastic waste.

If I have another minute or half a minute at my disposal, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would perhaps give consideration to reviewing the Fencing Act at some stage or other in the near future. Recently some of the farmers in my constituency pointed out that it would in any case be necessary to review the Fencing Act, especially because, in the cattle district in the far Northern Transvaal Bushveld, it often happened that farmers could not reach agreement as to how fences had to be put up. When one farmer notifies another of his intention to put up a fence which will, for instance, consist of three lengths of barbed wire and two lengths of steel wire, the other farmer may, in turn, have another specification. Such matters may well be solved before a committee, but this, in turn, would cause red tape and bother. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Potgietersrus has just conveyed to the hon. the Minister his extreme gratitude for what he has done for the wool industry. Under this Vote I note that R1.5 million is being appropriated for the Wool Board. In this very same week R53 million was voted for the wool industry in Australia. The hon. member for Potgietersrus went further. He said that we did not really differ with them. He said that we supported their policy. I do not know what the hon. member wanted. We on this side conducted the debate in a calm manner. While we on this side discussed the financial problems of the farmer and of agriculture, what did that hon. member do? He talked about plastic bags. [Interjections.] I want to return, however, to the hon. members for Prieska and Namakwaland. They said that our candidates used reprehensible methods in the elections.

Yes, extremely.

Sir, I do not know iwhether the hon. member for Brakpan knows those members, but let me tell him that those candidates of ours are people of the highest caliber one can find in this country.

What did you have to say in Queenstown?

Sir, I do not want to continue with this, but if the hon. member for Brakpan wants it this way, I shall do so. Not one of our candidates has ever tried to take over a meeting of another person in the election or to break up a meeting. That is more than hon. members on that side can say. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must now return to the Vote.

Sir, I now want to return to the hon. member for Namakwaland. He said that he was so grateful for what the hon. the Minister had done in regard to soil conservation in South Africa. He thereupon compared the figure for 1948 with that of the present day. What 1948 has to do with the present day, I do not know, but if he is so eager to return to 1948, I want to ask him what the position in respect of soil conservation in South Africa actually is. Four hundred million tons of soil are flowing to the sea. That is 100 million tons more than in 1948.

Who told you that?

It is general knowledge, my friend. I do not know whether you know about it. Sir, I wonder whether the hon. member knows what it means. It means that we are losing R50 million in phosphates, R40 million in nitrogen and R300 million in calcium per day.

[Inaudible.]

I shall give the hon. the Deputy Minister all the sources at any time, if he wants them. What is the Government doing in this regard? Slightly less than R5 million is being appropriated here. Out of a Budget of R2.500 million, this is all that is being appropriated. In other words, .2 per cent of the Budget is being voted for this purpose; .04 per cent of the national income of South Africa is being applied for this purpose. That is what this Government thinks of the soil of South Africa. And then that hon. member is so grateful for what is being done in regard to soil conservation! Two years ago this Government held a festival of the soil. Young children had to take sand and run with it to the sea. This signified that more soil had gone down to the sea. Sir, it should not have been a festival of the soil. It should have been a funeral service for what this Government has done to the soil of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to come to another point. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, they are welcome to make a noise; I am used to National Party organizers at my meetings. I want to come to another very important matter, i.e. the financial position of the cattle farmer in South Africa. I do not think it is necessary for me to say what that position is. During this past week we read the following in Die Burger: “Farmers summon Uys on drought steps; save what there is to save. ‘Help us, help us’ farmers plead with tears in their eyes”. Now this proud farming population of ours has been brought to their knees.

And you do not feel ashamed of yourself for turning this into a political issue.

Mr. Chairman, who told the hon. member that I was turning this into a political issue? I am not asking the Government to give rain or to make rain or to put a stop to droughts. That it cannot do. But what it can do is plan for the consequences of the drought.

It has done so.

What planning is there? There is so much chaff here in this country in the form of mealie stalks in good times. Such fodder can be made into pellets and can be stored. In this century of computers, surveys can be made of the various products which have to be produced and the farmers can be encouraged to produce them. It is the opposite, as the hon. member for Newton Park has reminded us, of what the former Minister of Agriculture, the former member for Oudtshoorn, told the farmers in Vaalhartz a few years ago. He told them to plough out their lucerne. The hon. the Deputy Minister stated in he censure debate that, apart from computers, he had all the necessary officials. He had one official for every nine farmers. The costs of the staff he has for agriculture works out to R400 per farmer. In other words, they have all the staff to do this planning. But what planning is there? If the Minister of Agriculture cannot see his way clear to doing so, we want to ask him at least to put the farmer in a position where he can build up his own fodder bank.

Nobody is stopping him from doing so.

I shall tell the hon. the Minister why one cannot do so. In the Western Province one can purchase chaff at 10 cents per bale in good time. You can buy just as much as you want. In good time one can buy mealie stalks very cheaply. But then railage is so high that you cannot buy it, because while the price of chaff is 10 cents, the railage on it from Malmesbury to De Aar is 92 cents, i.e. approximately twice as much as what the bale of chaff costs. Now the ordinary farmer must wait until there is a drought so that he can obtain a rebate. When the drought comes, there is no more fodder, because then speculators have bought up all the fodder. Tremendous amounts have been spent by way of drought subsidies, but did the cattle farmer receive those drought subsidies?

Col. 2672:

Line 11: For “cattle”, read “stock”.

Col. 2671:

Line 40: For “day”, read “Year”.

Col. 2673:

Line 5: For “92”, read “22”.

But of course; who else?

The producer of that fodder or the speculator received it, because the fodder is twice as expensive as it was under normal circumstances. He is now paying as much as he would have paid if there had not been a subsidy. He is not gaining a cent from it. That is why it is my request to the Minister that that rebate on railage should be retained throughout the year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it has been a long time since I last heard a person talking so much rubbish about agricultural matters at a meeting as that hon. member who has just resumed his seat.

Order! The hon. member for Umlazi may not read magazines in this House.

I am also sorry that that hon. member used the drought, with which we have been afflicted for a long time, to make political capital. I think it is a disgrace. I was sorry to hear him carrying on so about the efforts made by the. Department of Agriculture in regard to soil conservation works. If he had taken the trouble to look at the annual report of the Soil Conservation Board, he would have seen that the number of farming units which had been fully planned in 1967-’68 stood at 3,264, that is, almost five million morgen. The total number planned since the proclamation of the Act has been 50,296 units, i.e. more than 68 million morgen of land. The average surface area percentage is 57.84 per cent. I think that is a wonderful achievement in this Department’s attempt to conserve the soil of our country.

The hon. member said that we were attacking them on their reprehensible electioneering methods. Mr. Chairman, you know how certain hon. members on the opposite side made misuse of Land Bank loans and went delving into people’s personal affairs to make political capital out of that. If those people had simply wanted to state the true facts, if they had said, for example, that in 1969, there were 3,642 applications for loans of R40,000 and less, a total amount of R56 million, they would not have spent all their time talking about one or two major loans. Of that total number of applications 3,217, to the value of more than R48 million, were acceded to. The percentage of applications approved therefore was 88.3 per cent, and 85.5 per cent of the money requested was made available. That is in respect of loans below R40,000. The hon. member for Newton Park had a lot to say about one or two big loans, but what he omitted to say was that the small farmer, the man asking for a small amount, received a great deal of assistance from the Land Bank which is not in fact a State Department, but which is subsidized in respect of its interest rates.

I want to mention a second figure to try to eliminate the malicious gossip of the Opposition as far as Land Bank loans are concerned. In 1969 there were 538 applications for loans between R40,000 and R100,000. There were many fewer applications in the case of applications for loans below R40,000. Of those 538 applications, 321 were approved.

They had a lot to say about the big farmer who was being assisted by means of Land Bank loans. What is the figure in this regard? In 1969 there were only 61 applications for mortgages in excess of R100,000. Of those 61 applications 31 were granted; 50.8 per cent of the applications were therefore granted. In the case of the fanners who asked for R40,000 or less, this figure is 88.3 per cent. I think the hon. member for Newton Park should feel ashamed for spreading this story that the Land Bank was only helping the big farmer.

I want to return to a matter which is creating something of a problem in my constituency. This is the question of a certain variety of apricot, i.e. the Bulida apricot. In former years the Royal apricot was virtually the only variety of apricot which was planted in our part of the world, apart from grapevines. I should not like to say anything further about the grapevine to-night, because I think there would be hon. members here who would again think that I would read out a quotation about what they should do with wine. That is why I want to confine myself, for the time being, to the apricot. Criticism of the Bulida was so unfavourable that when someone put a question to the extension officer about the Bulida apricot at a farmers’ association meeting one day, the extension officer told him that what was under discussion was apricots, and that the Bulida was not an apricot. The Royal apricot has virtually died out in that area as a result of the fact that it only bears every second year. Now we also know that canning of the Bulida apricot creates problems because the canned apricot goes bad in the tins. We are aware of research work which has been and is being done to eliminate that problem. I should be pleased, however, if the hon. the Minister could perhaps tell us what the present position is and whether the farmers can plant the Bulida apricot. This variety of apricot bears very well and yields a crop regularly every year. But our farmers are in doubt as to whether we should plant this variety of apricot because we do not know whether the problem of the canned apricots going bad has been solved yet or whether it is possible to solve it.

I, as agriculturalist, believe and see it around me every day, that my fellow-farmers are optimistic people as far as apricots is concerned. They have faith, and they are hard-working. But now there are two agricultural phenomena which are causing us concern. I want to submit that the agriculture of the future is based on the continued tenure of agricultural land by individual farmers. I do not think even hon. members on that side of the House will dispute this point. I am not opposed to company fanning. We must however prevent farming in South Africa from being taken over by organizations with vast capital resources.

There is a second matter which I am concerned about. It is that nowadays we find many rich businessmen who use their surplus capital to buy farms. I have nothing against that, but I should like to impose a condition. If those purchases are not accompanied by occupation and cultivation of those farms, we must be on our guard against this tendency because it will harm our traditional farming set-up in our country.

In conclusion I should like to express a word of thanks towards the Department and K.W.V. Last year our wine farmers suddenly had to contend with a new vineyard disease, i.e. downy mildew. This disease, a fungus disease, constituted great danger for us. Quick action on the part of the Department of Agriculture and K.W.V. resulted in this blight being quickly identified, and as quickly counteracted. What I found so commendable was the fact that the various counteractive measures was so well co-ordinated as a result of the actions of the Department of Agriculture. I am proud to be able to say that the facilities of viniculture and viticulture in South Africa need not yield an inch to any research being done in any part of the world. I think our viticulture research work is of world standard. That is why I can only express a grateful word of thanks towards the Department of Agriculture and K.W.V. that did this work.

The Boland farmer has grown up with, what we call in the Boland, the Chambers (Kamers). These were financial institutions which were established by farmers and other people in the town. They invested their savings and these Chambers fulfilled the function of financing the local farmers in turn at an equitable rate of interest. So it has happened that many farmers have even been able to obtain a 100 per cent loan at a competitive rate of interest if they wanted to purchase a farm. These Chambers have gradually been taken over by major financial institutions. Many of these financial institutions concentrate on financing any other industries but agriculture. This creates a problem for the farmers, because the rates of interest of these major financial institutions have increased. Those farmers who were in the past assisted by the Chambers, are now experiencing the problem that they are bound to a very high rate of interest.