Mr. Speaker, this side of the House throughout yesterday afternoon argued on issues of fundamental importance to the security of South Africa’s economy and, through that, to our national security. We argued on the relative merits of the “demp” policy as opposed to the “growth” policy in dealing with inflation. We dealt with questions affecting the whole field of financial mismanagement by this Government. And what happened, Sir? Not only did the Government fail to give answers to our questions, but it was unable even to meet speaker with speaker. Towards the end of the afternoon we had the spectacle of the hon. member for Worcester entering the debate and making a speech which was no more and no less than a return to “basterplakkaat” politics, a speech going right back to the old tactics of the Nationalist Party which we know so well. But in regard to the issues raised by this side of the House there was not a single word, no short-term or long-term or any term at all policies in regard to economics. It is no wonder that the hon. the Minister of Finance, who is rumoured to want to retire, is unable to do so if that is the quality of financial economic thought on that side of the House. I want to bring the debate back to this, but before doing so I want to deal with one aspect.

Last night before the House adjourned I had quoted some of the statements made by the hon. member for Worcester when he spoke of the sabotage of the Afrikaner —“die Afrikanervolk gesaboteer”—and when he dealt with the “onderploeging” of the Afrikaner by immigrants. I want to add to that a passing expression used by the hon. member for Carletonville when replying to my hon. friend and colleague, the hon. member for Pinetown, when he said: “Wei, ek ken die Rooitaal baie goed”. I put this as part of an attitude, because that hon. member is an hon. member who, when he signed a hotel register in Nylstroom, gave his nationality not as South African but as “Afrikaner”. I know that, because I signed after him in that register and I signed it as a “South African”. But that hon. member does not consider himself a South African. He considers himself an Afrikaner and he talks of English as the “Rooitaal”. This shows that his mind rests in the dark depths of ancient history. Therefore I want to repeat my invitation to the hon. the Minister of the Interior, the great White hope of the Nationalist Party from Natal.

I will reply in my own good time.

I hope the hon. the Minister will enter this debate. We would like to see whether the light which he has brought to the Nationalist Party has not perhaps “fused”. If it has not fused, perhaps it has burnt out and he will find it in “Ashe” at his feet. This is the theme which has been used in this debate and this is Nationalism as we know it. It is not a nationalism which has turned to the right, which has turned verkramp, but this is what nationalism is about. This is what it has always been about. There has been no swing to the right, but a return to traditional nationalism. That side of the House are attempting to distract attention from their failure to govern South Africa in the interests of all its people. So they drag these red herrings across the debate, bring in the racial issues and talk of the “onder-ploeging van die Afrikaners”. So they talk of all the things which, as they have found throughout the years, appeal to the emotions of people and sweep up political feeling. That is why there are constant efforts made in an attempt to persuade people that we on this side of the House want an unrestricted flow of Bantu labour into the cities. Because certain newspapers misreported what I said in a reply to an interjection to the hon. the Minister of Community Development, I want, for the sake of the record, to state our policy clearly. We believe in a stable family life for the Bantu. We believe that, as far as it is practical and possible, they should live with their families in the security of their homes. We have never said that we would abolish influx control and we have never said that there would be an uncontrolled flow. So, when the hon. the Minister interjected and asked me whether we would allow all the Bantu to have all their families here, my answer was “no”. I say that it is the policy of the United Party to allow this to the maximum practical extent.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be diverted by the tactics of that side of the House in their continual attempt to drag in racial politics in order to mislead the people. I want to return to the theme of this debate as it proceeded throughout yesterday, flowing from the hon. the Minister of Finance’s introductory speech, when he said that he wished to fight inflation by cutting down on spending power. So he brought into effect a sales tax which he says will bring in R47 million during a year and which will hit at every single citizen of South Africa, rich and poor alike. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not correct that only eight per cent of the people of South Africa pay income tax? In other words, the Government itself considers that 92 per cent of the people of South Africa cannot afford to pay income tax. That is the Government’s own analysis, not ours, because those are the facts. That is the level which it has laid down for the paying of income tax. So eight per cent pay the income tax which keeps the Government going.

Not eight per cent.

Yes, eight per cent. Well, let the hon. members argue it. It is a small percentage of the total population of South Africa. But what about the 92 per cent who are being hit now? They are told that they are overspending. I should like to ask the hon. members on that side of the House whether the old-age pensioner is spending too much? Is he the cause of inflation, because he is overspending out of his miserable R35 per month, his disgraceful pittance which he receives as an old-age pension? Is he contributing to inflation by overspending? Is the man earning a disability grant, also a miserable R35 per month, the cause of inflation? Is he overspending? Is he pushing up prices? Is the widow living on a fixed investment, the fixed investment saved by her husband during his working life, an investment reducing in value year by year, overspending and contributing to the inflation which faces us? Are the Bantu workers, 80 to 90 per cent of whom are calculated to live below the subsistence line, overspending and so contributing to inflation? Is the railway checker overspending on his basic salary of R160 with which he has to support his wife and children? We will deal with that during the Railway debate.

However, is he the man responsible for inflation? Are the tens of thousands of railwaymen who earn less than R200 per month, overspending? Is it the family man who is overspending? I want the hon. members on that side of the House to get up and say yes, the family man of South Africa is wasting his money, he is overspending. They are not overspending, they are battling to exist at all. They are battling to come out at all. They have to scrape and cut down in order to meet their expenses. Then they are told: No, you are spending too much. You must save. How do you save if you cannot even meet the bare essentials of living? There is one way in which people can overspend, namely if they spend more than they earn through hire purchase or credit. What does the hon. the Minister do in this regard? He makes it easier to buy without money. He makes it easier to get into debt by relaxing hire purchase. This is the sort of logic you get from this Government. You must save, you must not spend so much, but I will make it easier for you to spend. I am only going to make it more expensive for you to buy the articles you need.

Do you want it stricter?

No, I am talking about the illogicality of this Government. We have a simple solution to this. Our solution is growth, productivity. The hon. the Minister’s solution is to cut down, to restrict. The hon. the Minister wants to blunt the sword which will slaughter the dragon of inflation which he talked about. He wants to put a tip on the end so that it cannot strike home. We want to sharpen the sword, to make the knife stronger in this fight by increasing productivity, by using labour to its best possible extent to produce more and bring down prices that way, and not simply making it harder to buy.

Whom is the Government hitting? It is not the rich man, the man who has the money to overspend. The man who has a Cadillac will make that Cadillac last another six months. He will make his wife wear a midi mink instead of a maxi mink if he has to. He is not the man that is being hit. He will only go half way round the world for his holiday instead of the whole way round. It is the ordinary man, the man who is battling today, who is being hit. He is not just being hit to the extent the hon. the Minister has announced, namely for R47 million, but much more.

I want to give a simple example of an item which costs R1 at source in the factory. For argument’s sake assume the hon. the Minister has raised the tax by 10 per cent to 30 per cent. The public are given to believe that they are now paying 30 per cent tax, which of course is not true. At source this product now costs R1.30 instead of R1 and when the wholesaler has added his 20 per cent profit, which he has to have because he has to finance the tax, and because he has to finance the goods, that 130 cents has become 156 cents. Let us assume now that that profit has a 50 per cent profit margin which is not excessive, because the retailer has to carry stock, he has to finance the stock and he has to finance his customer. So, the item of R1.56 becomes R2.34. If there were no tax the price from the wholesaler would have been R1.20 and the price from the retailer would have been R1.80. Therefore, instead of that item costing R1.80, it is now not going to cost R2.10, but R2.34. This means that the purchaser has to pay 54 per cent extra when he buys this item. This is a hidden burden which is being laid on the people of South Africa and the Government talks blithely of R47 million. They are going to take far more than R47 million from the housewives of South Africa. They are at least going to take half of that again and then they shrug their shoulders and say “we only taxed you R47 million”.

My colleague from Gardens referred to something I have raised before in this House. He referred to the hidden taxation which people are paying to the Government. How many members who are smokers have looked at their cigarette boxes lately and have noticed that for some time no amount of tax is shown on the tax stamp which is stuck onto the cigarette box? One used to look at it and then you saw the amount you were paying in tax. Today, because it is “administratively more convenient”, they do not show it any more. The public do not know what they are paying, because it is politically expedient for the Government to hide what the man in the street is paying to this Government for its mismanagement. I challenge the hon. the Minister and the Government to disclose to the people of South Africa what they are in fact paying by having a sticker on each item. Then, if he drinks a beer, he will know that he is paying more tax on that beer than he is paying the breweries for making that beer. Then, when he smokes his cigarette, his luxury which he is enjoying, he knows what amount of the price he is paying is for tax. Then, when a housewife powders her nose she will see every time she opens the box of powder, what she is paying to this Government in order to enjoy the modern amenity of cosmetics.

The hon. the Minister repeated in this debate that he was taxing durable and luxury items as far as possible—durable items like toilet paper and baby powder. These are the items which he considers durable and luxury items. So I have looked at some of these items. Once before I described what one would have to look like if one were not to pay the tax. Since that time, however, we have had an increase of taxation. I want to deal with a statement which was made by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. He told us in the no-confidence debate that the reason why the Government is not taxing caravans is because so many people are living in caravans. It is because the Minister sitting next to him cannot provide the houses for the people of South Africa. He cannot provide the houses, so his colleague next door says “did we not notice that caravans are not being taxed”. But caravans have now been taxed with an additional tax, bringing the total to 20 per cent. The hon. the Minister of Finance said that they are not taxing housing, clothes and food. Yet he taxes caravans by 20 per cent, and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs says that people are living in caravans “by hulle duisende”, to use his exact words. This is something the public should know about this Government. They should know, and it is not our claim but that of the Government, that thousands of people are living in caravans and that these are now taxed.

But let us look at the home which is not being taxed. If the hon. the Minister of Community Development would talk less and give us a few more houses and keep down the cost of housing, he would be getting somewhere. I want to ask him whether he has pleaded with the hon. the Minister of Finance. To paint a house costs 15 per cent extra at source, which means that the buyer pays 25 per cent by the time it reaches the shop. If one wants to put wallpaper on walls instead of paint it costs 15 per cent more and 25 to 30 per cent by the time one buys it in a shop. If you want a bath plug or a basin plug you have to pay a tax on that as well. If you want to buy utensils for your house you have to pay a tax of 15 per cent on them. If you want to stock your house with crockery, cutlery, a stove, a refrigerator, furniture and everything else you need for a house the tax is higher as announced in the hon. the Minister of Finance’s Budget Speech on Wednesday. Again I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development what plea he made to the hon. the Minister of Finance to remove these taxes from the person wanting to build a house. He said that every young married couple had a house. Does he still say so?

Yes, a housing unit.

The Minister says that every young couple has a housing unit. We will come back to that. It is on record that the hon. the Minister said that every young couple has a housing unit. But that Minister has done absolutely nothing to keep the cost of these housing units down while his colleague taxes them.

The Government does not tax clothes, but they tax the mother who wants to make clothes for her children because she cannot afford to buy ready-made clothes. The true South African mother who tries to follow the South African tradition, tries to clothe her family herself. The Government therefore taxes her sewing machine, her knitting needles and her thimble. In effect they say to her that she must go and buy her clothes in a shop because they are not interested in her trying to keep down costs by clothing her family herself. I am not even going to deal with taxes as far as children and babies are concerned, on toys and everything else needed to bring up a family. We on this side of the House have also dealt with the question of motorcars which are an essential item to so many people today. The Government has taxed one good thing, however. It has taxed cheque-writing machines, especially chequewriting machines that write out cheques for R7½ million to Agliotti …

I feel very strongly about my next point. Last year the hon. the Deputy Minister, in reply to questions in this House, stated, and it is on record in Hansard, that it was impossible for him to exempt poppies sold on Armistice Day from taxation. We pleaded with the hon. the Deputy Minister. He said that it could not be done and we said that it could. We have now been proved right and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will get up and apologise to the memory of those whose memory he allowed to become subject to taxation last year. I repeat that the people of South Africa should know what they are paying for this Government and not just to this Government. They are paying for it in Bantustans, the concept of independent states. They are paying for a divided Government, a party divided against itself, a party of division and confusion, a party without leadership within its own ranks, trying to lead South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister sits there with a team which he knows has deeply divergent views, views which he cannot reconcile. We are entitled to say that this is part of the cause of the price which the people of South Africa are paying for this Government. This is part of the cause of the blunders which are being made day after day—the wastage of taxpayers’ money, of your and my money and, above all, the contempt for the ordinary person struggling to make a living today. If those hon. members do not know about it, they have no contact with their constituents. They have no contact with their own people if they do not know the struggle which so many South Africans today are having, simply to make ends meet. If they do not know what they are having to sacrifice, they have lost touch with the people of South Africa. That is why we condemn this demand for more money to be taken from the people who can least afford to pay it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point …

The deputy leader.

Reference is being made here to the fact that I was a candidate for the leadership in the Free State. I just want to remind hon. members that in the Free State we have a democratic election of leaders, and not the kind the United Party sometimes has.

The hon. member for Durban Point is one of the foremost speakers on the Opposition side, but unfortunately he has another quality. He is one of the foremost clowns on their side. Now I have a great deal of sympathy with him in that connection. He must always keep his standard high. Unfortunately, however, he becomes a little tedious as far as I am concerned. In particular I want to refer to the attacks made on the hon. member for Worcester, a man who has balance and self-control and whose words he distorted here in order to present him as a racialist. I also want to mention his humourless reference to the hon. member for Carletonville, a man who is known for the fact that each year in this House, out of respect for the English language, he makes a speech in English. Now he is also being referred to as a kind of racialist. But as one of the prominent speakers on the Opposition side, and that in a financial debate, the hon. member for Durban (Point) could at least ensure that when he makes important statements they have something of a factual basis. He told us here that 8 per cent of the population pays income tax in the country. It is much nearer the truth, in fact it is the truth, that 90 per cent of the population pays 41 per cent, 9.2 per cent pays 35 per cent and,0.8 per cent pays 24 per cent of the taxes. I now want to tell the hon. member that in future he should do a bit of checking on his facts beforehand and not think that he is dealing with a lot of children in this House. After having listened for several hours to Opposition speakers, or rather “prophets of doom”, it is clear why they have been wandering around in the political desert for 23 years already, without any prospect whatsoever of reaching the political promised land in the foreseeable future. Their approach to the financial problems of our country is negative and destructive; they do not make positive suggestions and do not suggest any modus operandi that is based on fixed and well-considered principles. In short, their approach is one of the cheap incitement of emotions. We have just had an example of that. Fortunately we have a level-headed electorate and the Opposition will therefore not easily succeed in their endeavours.

They make a great fuss about the R47 million that the hon. the Minister wants to collect with an increased sales duty. Then again they object to the fact that for the first time in history the hon. the Minister has instituted the additional levy by way of a Little Budget. But it is surely a recognized way of doing things in quite a number of Western countries for the Minister of Finance to increase or to decrease taxation by between 5 and 10 per cent without pre-notification and without previous Parliamentary approval. Why do they then regard it as unreasonable for this Minister to come to Parliament first, even though it is during the Little Budget and ask for the levy of such additional taxation? This is, after all, the proper time for damping excessive consumer spending, and at the same time reassuring importers about import control, thereby avoiding unnecessary stockpiling and consequent pressure on our balance of payments. This Opposition, which is now making such a fuss about the sales duty, is the same Opposition that has for years been advocating this system of taxation in order to iron out the so-called “bulge”. Their main objection now is that this taxation is not being applied with sufficient selectivity, and that it involves too many products that the middle and lower-income groups must buy. As far as I can see, however, this taxation is being kept within the limits of the Franzen Commission recommendations. This commission recommended a sales duty that would not be applicable to food, clothing, footwear, cost of accommodation, health items and certain excisable goods. In my opinion the Government is confining this taxation to within the limits of the Franzen Commission recommendations. We know that White families with an income of less than R2,000 a year spend 64.2 per cent of the family budget on food, rental, payments on dwellings, insurance, repair and maintenance costs to dwellings, water, petrol, lights, clothing and footwear. Few of these articles are included among those on which a sales duty is being levied. Inevitably there are, however, items that do affect the lower-income group. On the other hand, however, we find that the sales tax on so-called luxury articles is now being pushed up to the maximum, i.e. 30 per cent, the maximum that is economically justified. We must remember that the businesses that are handling these goods, such as jewellers and fur dealers and producers, have a large number of employees that could be without employment if the sales tax on these goods were too high and the articles were consequently unpurchasable.

Furthermore, the main speaker on the Opposition side tried to make an issue of the position of pensioners and newly married couples. But is it not this Government which annually increases old age and other pensions and makes literally millions of rands a year additionally available to these people? Proper account is taken of the fact that these people have small and modest incomes and that the cost of living affects them most acutely. As far as newly-weds are concerned, I can say, without fear of contradiction, that no generation in our country has had a better time of it as specifically this present young generation. It is true that their costs are increasing, in some cases perhaps even to a disturbing extent, but they nevertheless enjoy a level of income and a standard of living today which is unprecedented in history. In order to keep wives in the labour market, particularly the newly married ones, ample tax concessions are being made to married people, particularly newly married couples. Those of us who matriculated in the ’thirties, or even in the ’forties, sometimes stand amazed at the high standard of living of these school leavers, students and newly-weds of today, while we as newly-weds could not even own a motorcar and had to save for many years before we were able to do so. Today, however, it is general for school leavers, students and newly-weds to accept a motorcar as an essential item. I do not, of course, want to be misunderstood, because I do not begrudge the young people of today the affluence they are enjoying, but then they must also take into account that they are enjoying a higher standard of living, and they should not succumb to the crocodile tears the Opposition is shedding over them today. One matter is as plain as a pike staff—that in spite of the increase in the cost of living, salaries and wages are at all times increasing more rapidly. But this is a fact which the Opposition does not even mention obliquely in order to give a balanced picture of the whole matter of the cost of living. On the contrary, the Opposition is just constantly singing us dirges about the increase in the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker, an additional fact about which the Opposition keeps silent from start to finish, in its financial attacks on the Government, is that the Government is primarily and directly responsible for the most important element of progress and growth, i.e. the creation of a stable government which is maintaining the country’s safety for its multi-national development. Since 1960 there have been exoduses, from more than 26 countries of Africa, of millions of people who had to leave the countries because of civil war, unrest and persecution. Throughout this entire period, in this country of ours on the southern tip of Africa, there has been only safety and prosperity, for which a strong Government can be thanked. What would have happened if the United Party had been in power? They would still have been busy at this time with court cases against the first communists they wanted to eliminate.

Sir, in addition I should like to express my joy to the hon. the Minister of Finance for a recent statement to the effect that he is going to have good news in connection with estate duty. I trust that when his announcement actually comes—and obviously I do not expect any announcement or reaction from him now—it will indeed bring great relief to farmers and certain other owners of property. Sir, we are living in a time of tremendous and even artificial appreciation of land values. This means that landowners, who would not have been regarded as very wealthy a number of years ago, are now regarded as wealthy and very wealthy. I want to mention the example of a farmer who is today regarded as wealthy and even as very wealthy. If he has only four children and those four children were to inherit from him, those four children would inherit only economic units and, as the Act reads at present, it could be that the State and the children are taxed with estate duty they can perhaps ill afford. Such cases will, according to my own personal opinion, have to be exempted from at least estate duty if such an announcement does come.

In addition I want to call upon the hon. the Minister to continue his endeavours to increase the income tax rebate per child, in order to encourage a wealth of children in White families. You will remember, Sir, that the Franszen Commission regarded the matter as so serious that they also made a specific recommendation about it.

In conclusion I just want to say something about the price of products. I particularly want to do this because the Financial Mail of 12th February of this year also made pessimistic predictions about this question. With reference to the expected good maize crop it stated, inter alia:

That is the typical attitude of this journal. If the farming sector were also to be favoured by weather conditions and by Providence, and if only one industry, for example the maize industry, were this year to ensure R150 million and more in foreign exchange, then there are again prospects of an overflow of money coming in from the farming sector, and there will be many problems. To the hon. the Minister and the authorities concerned I particularly want to say this in respect of the maize industry and ask them about it. It is the one exceptional year in which most maize farmers can share in the prosperity of a good crop. In many, perhaps in the majority of cases, a good income is urgently needed in order to pay debts to other sectors. As public servants and other employees have just recently, and rightly so, received good increases, in spite of inflation, I ask that magnanimity should likewise be displayed when fixing this year’s maize prices and the prices of other farming commodities.

I have now listened to the hon. member for Kroonstad, who said that he had lost his leadership in the Free State on a democratic basis, and I want to say that the hon. member made a few points that I want to come back to. But first I should like to deal with the point with which I agree and that is, as a matter of fact, a matter in which we have been taking the lead for a long time, the question of estate duty. I agree with him, of course. It is not the first time this House has listened to that, but the difference is just this. That matter has for a long time now been a matter of policy for the United Party, but for that member and his Party it is no more than an expectation. I hope that his hopes will not be dashed.

The hon. member says that my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Point), is a clown and he also says the hon. member has no sense of humour. I would never say that the hon. member for Kroonstad has no sense of humour, but if he does have one he hides it very well. Sir, the hon. member for Durban (Paint) is no clown.

He is a buffoon.

No, the word “buffoon” is not allowed. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

If the hon. member wants to regard the matter, which was put forward, as clowning, he may do so, but then I also want to tell the hon. member that he is trying to be funny about the needs of the people of South Africa; and if the hon. member thinks it is funny for one to speak of poverty and people who are experiencing difficulties, let him continue with pleasure. I have no doubt in my heart that some time or other the people will square accounts with him. The hon. member for Kroonstad asks how we can speak of only 8 per cent of the people who pay taxes. But very clearly my hon. Leader was referring to people paying direct income tax, and surely not indirect income tax, because indirect taxes are applied whether one has an income or not. [Interjection.] And there the figure of 8 per cent stands unassailed. I am satisfied in saying that in no debate so far has anyone yet attacked it, except the humorous member for Kroonstad. Then he also had something to say about the R47 million, and we are supposedly upset at the fact that it was introduced in an abnormal manner. I do not care what happens abroad in this respect, but I do want to tell the hon. member that in South Africa it is abnormal, and I think he will agree. And if he agrees, I ask him whether it is right to say that the hon. the Minister found himself in an abnormal position in the South African economy? It is therefore a more serious position than he and I would like to believe. And if the position is not serious, it becomes a still uglier matter for me because no Minister of Finance ought to find it in his heart to tax the people to the tune of R47 million unless there is really a state of emergency. R47 million is in no way a trifling matter.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) made other important points. These are points with which the hon. member for Kroonstad should not have had any problems. He spoke of the fact that today the taxpayer is expected not only to pay direct purchase tax, but also to pay tax on tax. As a result of that fact we hear “zip”, not a word, from the hon. member for Kroonstad. It seems to me that with all his financial knowledge that hon. member has never yet discovered that fact. This afternoon I want to ask him in all seriousness whether he does not think it time for us to reveal this fact to the South African people? Is it not time for the people to know what they are paying by way of indirect taxation? Only recently I studied the figures and was upset to see how the indirect income tax had increased over the last 10 to 12 years. In fundamental principles one is not against indirect taxation, but where we are dealing with a people such as the people of South Africa, where there is a tremendous mass of people on the bottom edge of the income bracket with, relatively speaking, a few on the top, as far as the income limits are concerned, it is my belief—for what it is worth—that indirect taxation is the heaviest taxation that could possibly be imposed in this country. It should consequently be imposed with the greatest care and circumspection. I really do not believe that the hon. the Minister took the needs of the South African population into consideration in applying this tax as he has done. It is time that the South African people knew what it is costing them to keep the Nationalist Party in power.

The Whites have a guarantee, but what would it cost them if you came into power?

I was hoping that would come. It is strange that we have a deathly silence about this matter. Do hon. members still recall how the people were told they must make sacrifices for separate development? Today it is not said that the sacrifices are for separate development, but indirectly that is surely the case. It is necessary for us to tell the people that they are making sacrifices for an unattainable ideal. That is our problem.

Let me come back and quickly refer to the hon. member for Worcester. If the hon. member for Worcester proved anything irrefutably, it is that the Nationalist Party longs for the past with a burning heart. They are afraid of the times we are living in. They are afraid of the problems modern South Africa is faced with, and they are afraid to face up to the problems and overcome them. They long for the time when they could simply shout “apartheid” and all the walls fell down. If we only give them half a chance they would fight the Anglo-Boer all over again. They long for the time when they could say there was no place at all for an Afrikaner in the United Party.

You are a Greyshirt.

No, the hon. members have it wrong. Their accusation is wrong, it ought to be O.B. I just want to explain to hon. members, as I have done before. The hon. the Prime Minister was also an O.B. The difference is that I saw the light, while he did not. When I tried to put right what he and I had botched up, he continued to make a mess of things. That is the whole difference. I speak of the hon. the Prime Minister with the greatest respect. I am just mentioning the facts as I see them. The hon. members in this House forget that we are dealing with a new era and a new South Africa. There were times when we laughed at Macmillan when he said that the winds of change were blowing over Africa. I want to say today that the winds of change have also blown over South Africa, and it has not left the people of South Africa altogether untouched either. Today the Nationalist Party is just as out of fashion as a mini-dress, and just like the wearers of the mini they do not realize it. The people of today— and it is high time that we stopped and viewed them with all seriousness—are finished with the slogans of the past. I am speaking of the modern people who have put off childish ways. These modern South Africans are finished with the slogans of the past, and the Nationalists cannot catch them with that any longer.

What did the hon. member for Hillbrow say during the election? I am not finished with you yet.

I am not finished with the hon. the Minister either. I shall come to him in a moment.

Mr. Speaker, the new South African people, if I may use the term “new”, are aware of their own potential as a people. They are aware of the potential of modern South Africa. These people demand that the potential of South Africa be properly developed and controlled, so that they will be able to reap the benefits of the consequent prosperity. The people of South Africa also know that if the potential of this country is properly developed, it will ensure a decent living to every person in this country. As far as these strivings and this proper development is concerned, in all these aspects the Nationalist Party is failing the people. That is why the people are leaving that Party. The people are no longer looking for a solution on the basis of separate development. It has failed. The people know this.

That is the people’s mandate to us.

The hon. member must give me a chance. The people are looking for a solution to our race problems, a solution based on the facts as they are. The hardest and most irrefutable fact of modern South Africa is that the Whites and the Bantu are here, and that they will remain here. They are both pushing the economic machine. The people of South Africa are seeking a solution on the basis of these facts alone.

You also want them here in Parliament.

No, the hon. member will not put me off my stride.

May I also say that it would be wrong to speak about the modern people of South Africa as a materialistic people, a heartless people. But these people realize, unlike the Nationalist Party, that if the Whites in the first place want to hold their own, and in the second place want to do their civilizing duty towards the non-Whites in South Africa, it has become time for them to develop themselves to the utmost and make themselves prosperous so that they and the other people of South Africa can share in the wonderful prosperity of the country. It is my belief that as long as the Whites carry a fear of the non-Whites in their hearts they will not be able to do their civilizing duty towards those people.

Your party is placing them on that road of fear.

No, the only way that fear can be eradicated is by making the people prosperous and by filling them with confidence in themselves. That is why the people are turning against the Nationalist Party, because that party believes in “rather poor but White”. And the people reply to the Nationalist Party: “No, not rather poor but White; we are White but we do not want to be poor”. That is what the people are saying. The United Party says “Yes, the people are right”. Not preferably poor but White, rather prosperous and White. It is South Africa’s right. Because the Nationalist Party is not giving what the people are looking and asking for, we find a nation-wide call for development, growth and production. That is the matter which the hon. member for Parktown clarified the other day. What is the reply of the Nationalists when we say that there must be development, growth and greater production. Then the Nationalist Party says: “No, damp, put the pot’s lid on”. That is what they are doing. They are deaf to the appeals of the people. Never in our history, as far as I can remember, has there been such a general request to this Government, right across the party lines, to produce. Here I have a newspaper, i.e. Rapport. Rapport states here openly that it has no faith that these steps of the hon. the Minister will combat inflation. Not only Rapport but all thinking bodies, with a few exceptions, support this side of the House today in its view that the answer is to be found in higher productivity. Neither the hon. the Minister, nor his Party, is giving any attention to that, and they are simply going on right across the party lines. Then we hear from the hon. member for Worcester that money has become a god for us if we speak in these terms. For the United Party prosperity is not an end in itself, but it is a means to an end, and the object we want to serve is the proper development and realization of these fine South African people. That is what money would give us. [Interjections.] I have no problems with that at all. Then may I also just tell the hon. member that if he says to us that money is our god, and that is something I would never address to him, because I think it unworthy of any member to say such a thing, I just want to tell him that he is making an idol of his ideology, which forms the basis of the hon. the Minister’s conduct. I want to tell the hon. member that the Nationalist Party is hobbling and shackling the people of South Africa as the result of an ideology. I am satisfied that the people who think about these matters, and who perhaps have a little more knowledge of economics than the hon. member for Worcester has of politics, agree with me. Now the question crops up about where we are doing the over-spending. They say “high spending” and “high living” and “too high salaries” are causing it. I am looking for the people who are doing this spending. It is surely not the “mink and Mercedes set” of Pretoria, or is it? Are they the ones who are spending in this way? I do not have any of them in my constituency, and if I do it is in very small measure. The hon. the Minister and his colleagues should, and I say it with all respect, now and then leave the main roads of old Cape Town—they can still drive around in the same motorcars—and venture down into the lesser known byways of the city. There they must see how the people live who are so dear to their hearts. Where are the people who earn so much money and who are wasting so much of it? Are they the 92 per cent who do not even pay direct income tax? Are they the young couples who are now being requested to pay tax on their furniture, their stoves and on nearly everything they want? Is this the way we want to encourage young families? Then the hon. member says yes …

Tell me how many people there are who are poorly housed in your constituency?

The hon. members are quite right, and they will be right if they tell me today in this House that that young couple ought not to have a stove, but that they should do their cooking on an open hearth as my forefathers used to do. They must be satisfied, as the hon. member for Kroonstad said, to get along without a motorcar, because he did not have a motorcar. The modern people of South Africa have developed their own needs and necessities, and no party in this country will turn them from those needs. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is not here at present, but nothing struck me so forcibly as the effect which the increase in the price of bread had on the average man. In this hon. House we can sit back and tell ourselves that we do not need to eat bread today, because it is not good for our diet, but in the homes of thousands and tens of thousands bread is one of the most basic of foodstuffs.

What does it cost per week?

I will tell the hon. member who is so long-winded that just last Saturday I visited a family where the man said to me, “Sir, what must I live on? After all, I cannot go on like this.” Do hon. members know what the increase in the price of bread costs him every week? The hon. member will laugh when I tell him that every day he must spend an extra 5 cents on bread alone.

Five loaves of bread a day?

Does the hon. member know what he is talking about? I can tell the hon. member that this is the true situation.

Do you want a reduction in the price of wheat?

Listen to the ridiculous question. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not speak about the wheat price. He farms with sheep. I now come to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I do not want to add to his difficulties because he is already having a bad enough time.

The hon. member told me that he would bring along all the people in his constituency who supposedly had such poor housing. However, he could only bring along four.

The hon. the Minister is again changing his original statement, but I shall accept it as such. In the Press the hon. the Minister says that the people are living too “luxuriously”. That is a very lovely word. He also says that one can get a reasonable house for R6,000.

Houses that are built by my department.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister knows, surely, that his department’s contribution is only a drop in the ocean. Where can the ordinary man, who falls outside the scope of the department, get hold of a R6,000 house?

In what income group?

Above R300 per month.

They can obtain loans by means of the joint Department of Community Development and Building Society scheme.

Does the hon. the Minister think that with a salary of R350 per month and virtually no savings he can obtain a hond from a building society?

Yes.

He is out of touch again. I now want to put another point to the hon. the Minister. I do not want to be personal. I believe that before the Cabinet of South Africa, or any member, has the presumption to warn the people of South Africa to work harder and spend less, members of the Cabinet should first set them an example. Have the people of South Africa not the right to ask, when the hon. the Minister tells them they are living too expensively, whether the hon. the Minister is setting an example when it comes to luxury articles? I do not want to say that the hon. the Minister of Community Development lives in a house that is too expensive. What I do want to say is that before the hon. the Minister, or any other Minister, points a finger at the people of South Africa, he must first look to his own house.

How many motorcars does he have?

No, I do not want to count his motorcars. He should rather set an example to the people of South Africa. Is it not the hon. the Minister who has a “barbecue” of R600 in his backyard?

No.

Is the figure a little less? R500 perhaps?

Yes, quite a bit less. It costs quite a bit less than your “barbeque”.

I am a working man. I prepare my meat in the veld and I do not have “barbecues”. I do not know what went wrong. There were times when ploughshares and wheelbarrows were altogether sufficient. Then we called it a “braaivleis spot”, but now it is a “barbecue” and it costs R600. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he knows that there are thousands and tens of thousands of young married couples and old people in South Africa who are yearning to have just one payment of R600 to put down as a first instalment on a house? In spite of this that hon. the Minister and his colleagues tell the people that they are living too expensively, that they must save more and that they are spending too much. The hon. member for Carletonville spoke of the “waste economy”. Who are the people who are guilty of this “waste”? Give me their names.

Are you opposed to that?

To what? Who are the people who are guilty of such waste? I do not know them. I know my constituency and I know what a difficult time people are having. The hon. the Minister of Finance said that we should keep our proper perspective. I agree. But then hon. members on the other side must not cold-heartedly push the perspective over to the wrong side. No, Sir, there are two sides to a question.

Now the answer is inflation. It is like Asiatic flu. It is Radio South Africa speaking now. That is how they explain it: Current Affairs says one can do nothing about inflation; it is just like Asiatic flu. That is how they explain it to the people. I have already said in this House that indirect taxation is a matter which the Minister of Finance must handle with the greatest circumspection. It is what I call a “pickpocket tax”. It is a hide-away tax. The people are being made accustomed to it. Eventually one is paying this tax on a thousand fronts. The people are struggling and they do not know why.

You are complaining with the white bread under your arm.

Look at that, Mr. Speaker, he is back in 1948 again. He is again fighting the 1948 election with the brown bread and the white bread. If he now adds the mutton then he is beautifully in perspective and there is no difficulty at all.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this Government is provoking a large percentage of the people of South Africa in an atrocious manner.

Who are the “people” you are speaking about?

Nationalists and United Party members, who are sick and tired of those wild and hackneyed stories which the hon. member for Worcester served up here. The day will come when the people will ask for retribution. The other day the hon. the Minister made a very illuminating statement when he said: “Yes, and nobody joins the United Party”. Yes, Sir? Last night an old life-long Nationalist telephoned me and said: “Mr. Hickman, I voted for you once, and I am now continuing to vote for you and your party”. That is how they come. That is only one. They are no longer prepared to swallow the jibes of the Government. I want to make the following request to the Government. Firstly, the hon. the Minister of Community Development must continue to say that there are sufficient houses. It is the best propaganda I can devise. Secondly, the hon. the Minister of Finance must continue to provoke the people in this way. I do not have the slightest doubt that it will then just be a matter of time before we govern South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have had the dubious privilege of speaking after the hon. member for Maitland. Much to his sorrow he mentioned three matters which are very near to my heart, namely bread, housing and meat. The hon. member for Carletonville rightly remarked here that the hon. member was complaining with the proverbial loaf of white bread under his arm. I shall tell him how my voters are summarizing the situation today as compared to the situation that prevailed before 1948, during the regime of that party which is now sitting on the other side of the House and which, it is hoped, will remain there for ever. He said that before 1948 the voters could not buy brown bread.

Who said that?

I did. They got it with soya-bean flour. Those very same members who are sitting over there today, who were in power at that time, almost before the rinderpest, are at present walking about with a loaf of white bread under each arm, and then they have the temerity to complain here about the present situation. They complain about housing. But when they had to provide housing in those days—when the hon. the present Minister of Community Development was still on their side, on the wrong side, as he himself says today-—I still had to queue, four years after I got married, in order to see unsympathetic people of the United Party. There was not even a flat available, not even in Jeppes, which used to be a slum area. Therefore, what right do they have today to complain about a housing shortage? Then they talk about barbecues, but they can be grateful that there is meat for having barbecues. Four years after I got married, in 1950, I was able to buy mutton for the first time, at a tennis function.

What did they do with their sheep?

A very intelligent question, Mr. Speaker. They gave their sheep to their political associates, those imperialists who, in their ships, called here at our ports. That is where our meat went to. How often did my dear wife not have to join a meat queue at 4 o’clock in the morning, only to get a small portion of meat? Who are they to level criticism today?

The hon. member for Maitland said that in our hearts we feared the non-Whites. But let me tell that poor hon. member that there has never been any fear in the hearts of Nationalists, neither in the hearts of their ancestors, nor in the hearts of their descendants. Let me tell the hon. member what is to be found in the heart of the Nationalist—faith, a thing about which hon. members opposite know very little.

But I want to come back to the basic things, and the people of South Africa expect the Opposition to be responsible enough to know something about these basic things. One basic aspect is the economic situation in South Africa at present. Now, we must relate this to the ideologies of the respective parties in South Africa— the National Party, the governing party, on the one hand and, on the other hand, the United Party. They want to solve all economic problems in South Africa today by means of an instant recipe, an instant injection—just give it more non-White labour and then the whole situation will have been solved. But they have never calculated what this is going to cost, and they do not care what the consequences of such a step are going to be. They could not care less about those things. As against that the National Party has now been governing the country for 23 years, and it can look back with pride on a very successful 23 years. Of course, there have been problems, as there are also today. But it met every problem as it cropped up and solved it for the good of South Africa—not for the good of a political party, but for the good of the Whites of South Africa.

Sir, in the course of the no-confidence debate here the hon. member for Lydenburg made certain elementary calculations for the benefit of the United Party, which has been pleading here for the continual addition of non-White labour to the labour market. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition pleaded for a very high growth rate. He thought of Japan and referred to I do not know how many per cent, but he mentioned terrible percentages here. The hon. member for Lydenburg took a few percentages and calculated that a growth rate of 8.4 per cent per year would bring about for South Africa additional capital and investment requirements to the amount of R3,384 million. The Opposition, the United Party, has never told us where they want to get this money from. Do they want it from Zambia or from Red China or perhaps from Russia or from Israel or from Great Britain or from America? Where are they going to get it from? They have never told us. The United Party went out of its way to quote so-called well-meaning Afrikaans business leaders in order to criticize us. I want to say straight away that the National Party, unlike the United Party, grants every right-minded South African the right to level criticism and to make a positive contribution to the progress and development of South Africa.

You are kicking them out.

It does not matter whether they criticize; they are still Nationalists. They have not joined the United Party as yet. They are helping to develop South Africa. But in contrast to that I now want to tell hon. members of the United Party what their people are saying. At the end of my quotation I shall say who this person is. He said—

This is a truth, as the hon. member for Carletonville also said. This person went on to amplify his argument, and at the end —and this is what I find so striking and important—he said the following—

“State action”, which is what the hon. the Minister is taking at present—that R47½ million on which the Opposition is harping to such an extent. Who said this, Sir? It was said by Stephen Mulholland in “This is the Business” in the Sunday Times of 24th January, 1971—only the other day. This is the person I am now quoting against them, and this is a person who will never vote anything but U.P. or Progressive. He said that the State should take action in this respect, and the State is doing so. Sir, I could quote on and on. They quoted our newspapers, our authors and our supporters. Here we have Dr. Etienne Rousseau, who, in Die Transvaler of Monday, 1st February—i.e. two weeks ago— said these words, which also constituted the heading of the article, “Extravagance and High Demands are a new Evil”. It is against these things that the National Party and the Government are taking steps. Sir, I could go on quoting because I have many quotations here, but I shall content myself with these.

What did Die Burger say this morning?

Here I have the New Year message of the President of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut; it is the message for this year, not for last year (translation)—

[Interjections.] I shall come back to the question of the more effective utilization of labour—

The hon. member for Yeoville, who is sitting in that front bench all by himself, referred to labour while I was quoting Mr. Ben Marais, the President of the S.A. Handelsinstituut. What does the United Party want to accomplish with its labour policy? I should like to illustrate this to you, Sir, in the following manner. Here we have the labour ladder of the National Party. That labour ladder is a ladder of White workers. Here we have the ladder of the non-White workers. Every labourer can, on his own ladder, go up to the maximum. But what does the United Party want? The United Party says there is a White ladder, and the non-Whites will be pushed in from the bottom, and who of them can guarantee that the Whites will not be pushed down at the top? That is the trouble with their policy. That is also the trouble with their political policy. In the process of integration which they are in actual fact advocating, they have no interest in the Whites, or in their future, or in their continued existence. They are merely concerned about their own political success, and as for the rest, they do not care about South Africa, its Whites or even its non-Whites. The United Party is not only doing itself a disfavour; it is doing the whole of South Africa a disfavour. Here we have a situation of inflation, which we all admit. It is a situation with which the world, including South Africa, has to contend, but what has been the United Party’s contribution to this debate and what was their contribution to the no-confidence debate? They have been defending injudicious extravagance. Here the motorcar of inflation is in the process of running away. They want to chase it in a production motorcar. The inflation motorcar is going downhill. They do not care about the abyss that lies ahead. The National Party wants to brake that inflation motorcar, but they want to race that inflation motorcar, the motorcar of rising prices, into the abyss and also destroy themselves in that process. They stand for an uncontrolled “spending spree” in South Africa. We are asking that the public of South Africa—not only the Whites but also the non-Whites—should, in its own interests, work harder and be more productive and save more, for out of savings future prosperity is born. The United Party has failed in its function as an Opposition—if not entirely, definitely to a large extent—because they have not joined us in appealing to the inhabitants of South Africa to assist in squashing this inflation monster. No, they are fighting every measure taken by the Government. They are casting suspicion on every measure taken by the Government. They are ridiculing the Government’s measures, and in that respect they have the whole-hearted support of the loyal Press that supports them. Sir, one grants them the right to criticize, but South Africa and its people will most definitely not grant them for ever the right to indulge in certain propaganda in an injudicious manner and to the detriment of South Africa. I should like to call this the grievances politics in which they are indulging nowadays, not only to the downfall of the Government, but also to that of the Whites, and if the Whites in South Africa should go under, there would also be no future for the non-Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Germiston (District) who has just resumed his seat started way back in the dark ages. I really do not understand this trend which has become prevalent in the Nationalist Party over the last two weeks, since the session started. I think they must be in an absolutely blind panic. They are going back to before 1948 to look for something with which to whip the Opposition. They have to go back to before that date in order to find something. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Carltonville with that interjection is just as guilty as the hon. member for Germiston District, who spoke about white bread made of soya beans. He said that the bread we had then was not even real bread. Let me tell that hon. member that that was the best bread he ever had in his life. It was bread that did him more good than anything he has eaten before or since. Surely he knows that that bread was introduced for a purpose. [Interjections.] It is no good the hon. member for Stilfontein shouting about it. He existed on that bread and he was very grateful for it in those days. I want to say that I, too, was grateful for that bread. I am not one of those people living in a ministerial house with a R600 barbeque outside. Let me say that I was not born under those circumstances. I have stood in the same queues that hon. member spoke about. I want to say that I was proud to stand in them, because it was part of the offering we were making towards the war effort. My mother did not object, as his mother and his wife did because they had to stand in a queue. This is something that those hon. members cannot understand. They have never fought a war. They do not know what it is. The only war they have ever fought was against their own country.

Order! the hon. member is not allowed to say that.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. I want to say that I, too, suffered during those meatless days.

Sir, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, Sir. We still have time to go and the hon. member will have a turn to make his speech. I was saying that I too suffered during those meatless days. We all did. The hon. member must not think that this is anything different. He must not think that this was something done by the United Party Government because they wanted to do so. Does he think that those measures were aimed particularly at him and his wife, or does he think that the Government had a reason for doing it, a reason for which the whole country was fighting in those days? Sir, I want to say further that there are certain members on this side of the House who, at the time when that hon. member was objecting against one meatless day a week, had not seen meat for months, and that in the service of their country. Now that hon. member talks of one meatless day a week. He was not even in the service of his country.

I shall show you a medal. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon. member went on to discuss the economic question and told us what he considered the solution of the United Party to be. As he put it, our solution is merely to open the floodgates to more non-White labour. I do not know where he has been these last few days. Where was he during the No-confidence Debate when we made it quite clear that we would not open the flood-gates? The hon. member for Durban Point made it quite clear again this afternoon, but it appears that the hon. member either does not or will not understand. He does not want to understand. If that is his attitude, it is no good talking to him any more. We have made our position regarding labour quite clear in this House.

What did the hon. member for Hillbrow say?

The hon. member for Hillbrow has said no more than that. Nobody on this side has ever advocated the abolition of influx control. Nobody has ever advocated the free admission of non-White labour into all spheres of the economy in this country. We have taken a responsible stand in the interests of all the people of South Africa, even though the hon. member will not accept that. We have taken that stand in order to make better use of the available labour in the country.

How? Define “better use”.

This has been defined repeatedly. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

The hon. member mentioned that, as far as the Government is concerned, they see two separate labour corps, a White labour corps and a non-White labour corps. These two must never meet or mix. The Whites will develop to the maximum of their potential and the Blacks can develop to the maximum of their potential. I want to ask where in South Africa a non-White can develop to the maximum of his potential under this Nationalist Government?

Of course he can.

It is no good saying “of course he can”. Hon. members must tell me where he can.

In the Transkei.

What use is the Transkei to him?

What about the gangers?

My Leader never refused any gangers. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.

You are refusing them the right to become gangers.

No, that is not so.

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that they should not put questions to the hon. member all the time. This is a place for conducting debates and not for putting questions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state categorically that the hon. member for South Coast has never said that we will not have Bantu as gangers on the Railways. That is on record once and for all. He has never said this and it is not the policy of the United Party not to use them. It is the policy of the United Party to use non-Whites in every category to the best of their ability and to let them develop to the maximum of their potential.

Yesterday the hon. member for Carletonville complained bitterly about the corps of unproductive White workers which has developed. He said that the reason for our labour shortage in this country is that too many White people were being employed in unproductive capacities. Has he asked himself why they are being employed in an unproductive capacity? They are being kept down there because there is nobody else to do that work. If they would open the door and allow the non-Whites to do that work, the Whites could also develop to the maximum of their potential. I maintain that the White workers are today being held back in their development in South Africa because of the illogical policies of this Government, which have placed a ceiling on their development because they are holding the non-Whites back who should be moving in behind the Whites as they progress up the labour scale of development.

It is my intention this afternoon to discuss with the hon. the Minister of Community Development the question of housing. Unfortunately I see that he has left the Chamber, but I believe he will be back within a few minutes. I preface my remarks by referring to questions I asked him in the last few weeks, which indicate that the hon. the Minister has purchased certain flats. I know, in particular, of a block he has purchased in Pietermaritzburg. I believe he has purchased others throughout the Republic and that it is his intention to purchase still more throughout the Republic in order to house Government officials. I accept that it is the responsibility of his department to provide housing for certain Government officials. What I do not accept is the way in which he is going about it. It is difficult to deal with this without the Minister being here, Sir.

The questions I have asked have elicited the fact that they definitely have purchased flats. The Minister admits this. He admits that the tenants, if they have not already been given notice, will be given notice to leave. In reply to a question this afternoon. the hon. the Minister told me that with regard to the flats in Pietermaritzburg at least, he does not intend offering those tenants alternative accommodation at the moment. If I understand him correctly from the answers given to the supplementary questions I put to him, if those tenants have not found suitable alternative accommodation on 30th June which is the last date he has allowed them, he will then do his best to assist them. I hope this is a fair summary of the situation as it is today.

In what income groups are those people?

At this stage I am afraid I cannot answer that. However, I know that they range from pensioners through civil servants to other white-collar workers. I think the hon. the Minister will have his chance to reply in this debate. I should like to put my case. I have had to mark time a little bit. I should now like to go on with my case.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there has been a change in the policy of his Department? I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he will concede that the function of his Department is to provide accommodation for people, to provide housing units or flats in one way or another? Would the hon. the Minister accept this as the prime function of his Department?

In respect of certain income groups, yes. It is no function of my Department to provide housing for people above a certain level of income.

I will accept that. But it is the function of his Department. Now, is it right that his Department should take accommodation away from Peter to give it to Paul?

If Paul needs it more, he must get it.

I am sorry, but I think in this case it is a different story altogether, irrespective of income groups and earnings. I submit that that does not apply in a case like this. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he purchases a block of flats which is subject to the Rents Act?

Why not?

Why did the hon. the Minister not buy a block of flats which was first occupied after May, 1966?

Because there was not one available.

No, I do not accept that at all. The hon. the Minister is doing this to circumvent the provisions of the Rents Act. When I asked the hon. the Minister whether consideration has been given to affording tenants occupying accommodation in premises purchased by the Government the same protection enjoyed under the Rents Act by tenants in premises purchased by a private individual or company, his reply was “no, not as far as the Department of Community Development is concerned”. He goes on to give the reasons for this which are:

What does the hon. the Minister mean by that? His Department which is the most profitable estate agency in the country …

Where do you get that from?

I do not think there is any question about it. The figures that we have had in reply to questions put in this House show that.

If I make all that profit, why do I come to Parliament every year to ask for more money?

To make more profit. That is all: to buy more land, to make more profit, to buy more flats to get more people out.

In all seriousness, I would like the hon. the Minister to rise in this debate a little later and explain this project. I cannot understand why his Department has to buy a block of flats and put people out of accommodation, especially out of rent-controlled occupation, where they have been protected by the Rents Act, where they occupy accommodation at a reasonable rent. But the hon. the Minister now throws them out and will possibly put them in a block of flats which is not rent controlled.

Can the hon. member name me one man who is on the street?

No, nobody is on the street yet. What is the comment of one of the persons in this particular block of flats? It is that he has been to every letting agency in Pietermaritzburg without success now and that every letting agency has a waiting list as long as his arm. One referred to the waiting list as being a mile long.

This goes a little bit further. I asked the hon. the Minister whether he was going to find suitable similar alternative accommodation? The answer is no. The hon. the Minister is not going to, because he is protected by the Rents Act, or because his Department is not subject to the Rents Act. But what was the position with a firm in Johannesburg who had a block of flats that they wished to demolish for other development? His Department and the Department of Planning compelled the landlords to find suitable similar alternative accommodation. In cases where suitable alternative accommodation could not be found at the same rental, that company has been forced to subsidize the rent for those people so long as they used those premises. Why does it not apply to him and his Department?

If anybody who lives in those flats falls under a certain income group, it applies to me as much as to anybody else. I am, however, not interested in people who fall in a group above a certain income group.

Will the hon. the Minister give me an assurance that he will not throw one civil servant out in order to put another one in?

I will give the hon. member the assurance that nobody will be on the street.

This is the second time that I have heard this from the hon. the Minister. He says that nobody will be on the streets. This, however, is small comfort to the, people in those blocks of flats who are sitting there with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads waiting for 30th June and not knowing what is going to happen. They are trying to get accommodation, but they have not been able to get accommodation. Some of the people who live in those flats are pensioners and they cannot afford to go to flats which do not fall under rent control. They have occupied these flats for years.

Why do you not help them? What sort of an M.P. are you then? They still have six months to find other housing.

With what must I help them when there is no accommodation? What is the position in Pietermaritzburg? Does that hon. Minister know? Is he interested in the accommodation position? How many housing units are short in Pietermaritzburg?

Not so many.

The hon. the Minister says not so many, but there are well over a thousand. The last estimates were made at the beginning of 1969 …

I will do the same to the hon. member as I have done to the hon. member for Maitland, that is, to ask him to bring them to me.

What?

Bring those people who cannot get houses in Pietermaritzburg to me.

The hon. the Minister must wait a minute now. It goes a lot further than this. At the beginning of 1969 there was a shortage of over a thousand housing units and I have not received any later figures.

How do you know?

That was according to the reports of the City Engineer at that time. The shortage was over 1,000 housing units. It has been aggravated since. Pietermaritzburg is the fastest growing city in the Republic. There is no doubt about that. This is accepted, but at the same time we are falling down on the provision of housing. When this hon. Minister’s Department did help the City Council to provide housing, the Minister of Planning and the Minister of Labour stepped in and stopped the building just because of some ideological illogicality.

Has your City Council ever asked money to provide housing from my Department and received a negative reply?

No, not with a negative reply. This is just where the hon. the Minister is so clever. They have not received a negative reply, but every stumbling block was placed in their way. After they had seen the matter through, they found that his colleagues come to stop the building operations for some nonsense. The reason why they were stopped was because a non-White had a hammer or a trowel in his hand with which he tapped a block in its place. For that reason the development was stopped. This is the illogicality. Then at the same time that his colleagues stopped the building, this hon. Minister came and took the accommodation away from others. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether any flat dweller in this country is safe from him and his Department today?

Yes.

Which one?

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. member that if he wants to put questions to the hon. the Minister he can expect a reply when the Minister addresses the House. I want the hon. member just to debate the question before the House.

I accept that, Mr. Speaker. Then, instead of putting some questions to the hon. the Minister I will make an allegation against him. I must tell him and I must tell the flat dwellers of South Africa that not one of them is safe from the machinations of this Minister. This is so because of this about-face which seems to have taken place in his Department where, instead of providing new accommodation for people, this Minister is merely taking existing accommodation, robbing Peter to put Paul under a roof. They are not worrying about what is happening to Peter, except that he gives the assurance that nobody will sleep in the streets. Of course nobody will sleep in the streets, because the city will not allow them to. But is this Minister now going to wave a magic wand to provide accommodation for these people? What sort of accommodation is he going to offer them? The point is that it must be suitable and similar accommodation. It must also be as advantageous and as useful to the occupier as the accommodation which he is occupying now. I am afraid this is a point which I cannot accept. I want to quote to the hon. the Minister a letter which I have received and it reads as follows:

The writer of the letter then goes on to suggest a solution:

I do not know if the hon. the Minister is prepared to do that but I sincerely hope that he is. I sincerely hope that the people who are going to be displaced from this block of flats, and other flats which I believe this hon. Minister is going to purchase, will not suffer and will not sleep in the streets.

For the sake of the record I want to put something straight. Before the hon. the Minister replies, or one of the members on the other side asks us what about the block of flats that was expropriated by the Natal Provincial Administration in Clarence Road. Durban, I would like to clarify the matter. The story has been going around that the Provincial Administration of Natal has done exactly what this hon. Minister has done in Pietermaritzburg, namely that it has expropriated a block of flats, that it is throwing the tenants out and that it is going to house in that block of flats certain teachers employed by the Department of Education. The position is that that block of flats is in an area which was zoned some years ago for educational development. It has been expropriated for an extension to the Clarence Road Primary School in Durban. This block of flats is to be demolished to allow for extensions to that school. There is no parallel whatsoever between that case and the case which I have drawn to the attention of this House in Pietermaritzburg.

Have they found alternative accommodation?

The question of alternative accommodation has been discussed with the tenants. Nothing has been done yet. The property was expropriated on the 30th September, 1970. On the 9th February, 1971, they were given four months’ notice to move, but on the 15th February that notice was withdrawn. They were advised that owing to difficulties with building and earth moving the demolishment of the block will not take place now, but at some future date. The tenants will later be given a further three months’ notice to move.

But how did that case differ from the one in Pietermaritzburg?

It differs in this way, namely that it is not the function of the Provincial Administration to provide housing units for those people. It is the function of that hon. Minister there. He admitted this. There is no question of putting them on the streets. Negotiations are taking place and these people are receiving the most courteous and helpful attention.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That this House notes with concern the extremely undesirable position which prevails in large rural areas today as a result of population movements, and strongly urges the Government to consider the advisability of, inter alia, curbing the depopulation of rural areas, caused by the movement of Whites, by—

1. (a) placing the agricultural industry on a sound footing;
2. (b) stimulating the development of commerce and industry in these areas; and
3. (c) taking the necessary steps to increase confidence in these areas.

I should like to begin my speech by quoting from what was said a week or two ago in Die Burger about the census and the depopulation of the rural areas. The report read as follows (translation)—

Following that, Sir, the correspondent mentioned quite a number of places, particularly in the Cape, and showed how tremendously the number of White persons in those districts and towns had decreased. But the report went on to say—

This situation is so easily dismissed by saying that it is a world trend and that we can do nothing about it in any case. Quite recently I read an article which illustrated very well what happened in Texas, for example, where, as a result of tremendous droughts, more and more people had to leave the area. I readily concede that natural conditions also have a lot to do with this problem which has developed so rapidly, particularly in the past decade. But this trend of the migration of Whites in particular from the rural areas is not the only example of world trends which apply locally as well. This same problem exists in other parts of the world. In America, for example, they are trying with their price support policy to do something to counteract the situation. Where there once were prosperous farmers, there are today scores of them who are staring ruin in the face. The businessman in the rural areas has become pessimistic and is becoming more and more afraid of his economic future. This is a strange phenomenon we have here. We speak so easily in terms of development in the Bantu areas, where there is almost no infra-structure of any significance. But in the White rural areas where there is in fact an infrastructure we are allowing the situation to stagnate and people to suffer dire hardships. In remote rural areas farms are lying abandoned; the farmers were forced to look for a subsistence elsewhere. Sheep farms are coming on to the market and are being sold at ridiculously low prices in comparison with a few years ago, while once capitally strong farmers are losing thousands of rand. Nobody in this House is going to tell me that this is a healthy state of affairs. Even if we cannot in this debate today decide on steps to remedy this state of affairs, we will still be achieving one thing—to focus the attention of South Africa on this problem which is becoming worse by the day. It is not only a source of concern for the country-dweller, but also for the urban-dweller. Our first task will consequently be to place our agricultural industry on a firm foundation. I have scores of quotations here from which I can read to indicate how the situation has changed over the past few years. I can mention examples of once prosperous farmers from Prince Albert who today have to work on the national roads and who must be prepared—this information I received not from English-language newspapers, but from National Party newspapers—to work with non-Whites in order to keep themselves and their families going. This is a state of affairs which has developed because many farmers see no future for themselves any more. They have been impoverished by droughts and by lower prices and higher production costs.

It is my task to tell the hon. the Minister this afternoon that we expect certain steps on his part. I am not being critical of what has already been done. On the contrary. I want to express my appreciation that in times of emergency assistance was in fact rendered by the State. For example I associate myself with the stock withdrawal scheme in order to help farmers to rehabilitate their veld. However, I cannot omit to tell the hon. the Minister that the situation is not yet a sound one and that what is being done is not enough. We are not going to overcome this problem, owing to various factors. It has become the policy of this Government to curbspending, it is as a result of that policy that the banks are today able to give less and less credit to the farmers.

Nonsense!

Let me tell that hon. member that it came to my attention during the last two to three days that banks everywhere are asking farmers to restrict their credit. They are saying that the reason why this has to be done is because it is Government policy. I maintain that an incorrect principle is being applied here and that we are curbing production and, what is more, we are further aggravating the position of people who have gone through a terribly difficult time. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the lack of liquidity of most farmers in the widespread rural areas of the Cape has reached an extent which in my opinion has become quite tragic.

But your opinion does not count.

That hon. member represents an urban constituency. It is easy for him to talk because he does not travel around and he does not know what is going on in the country: it is beyond his ken. But we in this House are concerned about the situation, and I want to make it very clear to the hon. the Minister that we must tell the commercial banks to act carefully. The hon. the Minister of Finance said in the past that he did not want production to be curbed, and that the farmer would receive special consideration and recognition and that certain concessions would be made to them. I want to warn the hon. the Minister that that concession which the hon. the Minister of Finance spoke of a year or two ago does not mean very much any more and that if this line of action continues to be taken, people are going to be driven from their land, people who should not be driven from the land. It is no longer going to be only the incompetent farmer who is going to be driven from the rural areas, but some of our best young farmers in South Africa, if this situation continues. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he must give very serious thought to a suggestion which was made by a President of the S.A. Agricultural Union when he stated some time ago that it seemed to him that a large part of the debts of these people would have to be taken over. The President of the S.A.Wool Growers’ Association said that the Land Bank would have to expand its powers even further, and that it would have to be prepared to take over the agricultural financing of many of these people. I know that this specific point is not at issue in this debate, but I think that it is one of the methods which can be applied to restore stability to so many of our people in the rural areas. I want the hon. the Minister to give attention to those two things, viz. taking over the long-term debts of the farmers, and the question the liquidity of the farmers in the rural areas. On a previous occasion the hon. the Minister admitted that the high rates of interest the farmers had to pay were giving him sleepless nights, but the hon. gentleman did, also through the Minister of Finance, introduce an interesting subsidy scheme for us which had been advocated I do not know how many times by this side of the House but which only came into operation last year. But in the five to six years prior to that the financial position of many farmers became steadily worse. Although we are grateful that the scheme has been introduced, I must say that it is a pity there was such a long delay before it came into operation. Sir, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister for his consideration that we must not think only in terms of the man who is able to obtain a subsidy in respect of long-term loans which he has with recognized financial institutions, but that we must also think in terms of the man who obtained his loan at a private institution or from a private person and who does not fall into the category laid down by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think that this is one of the immediate steps which can be taken to give these people a little more confidence in future. I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister is here because the hon. gentleman gave us the assurance that if we found, when it comes to the wool farmer, that the schemes on which the various wool producing countries have agreed, are not successful, the Government will not be unwilling to help the wool farmer in South Africa further. I think that will be welcomed. I want to point out to the hon. the Prime Minister that the wool industry today is back where it was in 1930; one cannot argue that away. The wool industry is one of the most important types of farming for earning foreign currency for South Africa. In addition there are more or less 35,000 people who are specifically involved in the wool industry or who are also producing wool through mixed farming. This is a considerable number of people, and that is why it is a good thing the hon. the Prime Minister availed himself of the opportunity to give those people some confidence. But I must also warn that if we have measures with which we want to help the wool farmers, we must be prepared to say so, and we must not have a situation similar to the one where assistance was merely promised to the farmers in the Sunday River valley. The hon. the Prime Minister paid a visit to them, and now they are asking the hon. the Prime Minister to pay a return visit in order to see how the situation has deteriorated after a year. In other words, the assistance which was offered, was quite inadequate. We must ask ourselves the question whether the assistance of the State today is adequate, and if it is not adequate we must have the courage of our convictions to find the money for that industry. [Interjection.] Of course we will support the hon. gentleman. We have said so before. You see, Sir, we have inflation in many spheres, but in many parts of the rural areas we have already had a recession for the past five or six years, and surely it cannot be a good thing for a country, where one wants the people to produce, to have a condition of recession develop. If the hon. members opposite want to adopt stronger measures in this respect, they can count on the support of this side of the House, because we have previously made our position in regard to this matter quite clear. If it is necessary to help an industry or a sector of agriculture which finds itself in difficulties, we on this side are prepared to do so. That is why the first step will be to place our agricultural industry on a firm foundation. I do not want to discuss long-term policy in agriculture with the hon. the Minister now, because we will have a further opportunity to do so this year. But what I want to emphasize now, is that over and above the steps which have been taken, we will also get on the part of the Government the attitude that if the situation deteriorates further it will be prepared to help.

I now come to the second point of my motion, and that is the stimulation of trade and industry in these areas. Now I know that this is a tremendously difficult question. How does one stimulate industry, and how does one stimulate trade, if there are insufficient opportunities to do so? But this is not unique to South Africa. This Government is stimulating industry in the border areas, along the borders of the Black reserves. If that is possible in terms of their policy, I think it is also possible to stimulate industry artificially in the rural areas as well. Here I want to remind the hon. member of the point made in the statement in Die Burger which I quoted at the outset, i.e. that the only exception is rural towns where new growth points have developed. Sir, nobody can tell me that there are no opportunities to establish new growth points. I can mention many examples of rural towns. There are places such as Vryburg, which also have one or two as Middelburg, which already have one or two minor industries. There are places such minor industries already. There are places in the South-Western Districts which have become impoverished as a result of the drought and poor economic conditions in agriculture. There, too, one finds are minor industries today. Why is it then impossible to single out certain points in our greater rural areas where we can establish such industries?

This has already been done.

If this has already been done, how is it possible then that the White populations of De Aar, of Beaufort West, of Graaff-Reinet and of Cradock are all decreasing? If the hon. the Minister says that this has already been done, I want to encourage him to do so on a larger scale, because then he will help check the depopulation of the rural areas and he will ensure the survival of these rural areas. I want to point out to the hon. Minister that a start can be made with certain of the minor industries associated with our agricultural industry. However, there must then be a willingness on our part. There must be enthusiasm on our part to tackle such a task. Then we must have the vision to want to tackle it. But what are we doing? We are saying: “It is a world trend. Therefore we must be satisfied with what is happening in South Africa.”

I want to mention to the hon. the Minister a further example of what is happening. It is true that Whites are leaving the rural areas, but as a result of the poor conditions of agriculture, the non-White population is also moving to the towns. How long will those people remain there if they are not assured of a subsistence there? Consequently, for the sake of those people as well, who are today creating a major social problem for us because of their poverty, it is imperative that there should be such industries to supply those people with work. Scores of farmers today are getting rid of their labourers. It is not because they do not want to help these people. They simply cannot afford to keep those labourers on their farms. Those people are today moving to the towns. If they cannot find a means of subsistence, what must become of them? That is why it is essential that we should also think in terms of the development of minor industries in the larger rural towns. Hon. members may perhaps say that we do not have enough water in the remoter parts of the Cape rural areas. That is quite correct, but I have been informed by an expert that if we are prepared to drill deep enough, we will find more than enough artesian water to maintain the largest of industries in the rural areas.

A hundred thousand feet deep?

No, it is not 100,000 feet deep. I have been informed that in an area such as Oudtshoorn, for example, some of the best artesian sources which the Cape could wish to have can be exploited within 1,000 to 2,000 feet. Is it impossible to do this? It is not impossible, but as I said, we must have the will, the vision and the willingness to tackle it.

I come now to the last point of my motion, viz. that we must take the necessary steps to increase confidence in these areas. My original view was that we should ask the hon. the Minister of Planning to undertake more surveys and investigations into the rural areas. A year or two ago there was in fact a commission which instituted an investigation in regard to the greater Western Cape. They brought out a good report, but I wonder whether that commission went far enough. I wonder whether it is not again time the hon. the Minister thought in terms of a commission which could tell him precisely what may be done in the rural areas of South Africa.

My Department has sufficient knowledge and information to do this itself. They are working on it.

I am glad to hear that. If his Department does have all the knowledge and information, then he must tell us today in which direction we are moving and in which direction we are able to go. We are not merely interested in the precious and semi-precious metals lying buried there. Wonderful investigations have already been made in that regard. We know that a search for oil is being made. We hope that those raw materials will be found, because that will restore confidence in the rural areas. But that is not all we are aiming at. We are also aiming at achieving the decentralization of industries in the rural areas, so that when we refer to the decentralization of industries we are referring to something tangible. That the hon. the Minister can give us, if he has the answers.

My concern in regard to this matter is not only from an economic point of view. The economic point of view is very important because we can ensure that the economy of the South African rural areas is not further handicapped. But what is of even greater importance, is that we think in terms of the manpower and human resources which we ought to have in the rural areas. We cannot have South African rural areas which consist of old people and pensioners and where young people are no longer available, or where they do not want to stay. We ought to adopt a course of leading our young people back to the rural areas, where they can make a decent living. That is what the long-term direction of this Government ought to be. I urge the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Planning to give us direction now and to show us the future course to follow, so that we can restore confidence in our rural areas. If that does not happen now, by waiting a year or two, it may become altogether too late.

For those who listened to the hon. member for Newton Park this afternoon it is very clear that he left Hanover years ago and is now sitting in Newton Park. This is an old story, but many old stories remain true. The same applies to Walmer.

A motion has been moved here to the effect that the House notes with concern the “extremely undesirable position”, etc. In regard to this it is asked time and again how desirable this process of the depopulation of the rural areas is, while the approach ought to be: How natural is the process, and how can we adjust to it? Let me say at once that we have the greatest sympathy with the problems of most of the Cape farmers where they, as a result of the drought, have been forced to their knees. This Government has helped those people. Hon. members need only ask those farmers. They are still farming and have been brought to their knees, although everyone will say that a government has never helped farmers as this Government has done. I leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members who will speak after me, will concentrate more on agriculture.

What I want to discuss is the depopulation of the rural areas. This motion also refers to the depopulation of the rural areas. It does not refer to the depopulation of the Cape. I now want to make it very clear to that hon. member that he must not make such a general statement. There is depopulation of the rural areas in the Cape and in the Southern Free State. But there is no depopulation of the rural areas in the areas north of Bloemfontein. There is no depopulation of the rural areas in Natal. There is no depopulation of the rural areas south of the Eastern Cape. There is no depopulation of rural areas in the Transvaal. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He has been away from the rural areas for too long.

The hon. member did not take into account at all when this depopulation of the rural areas began. Now I may just inform him that the first signs of the depopulation of the rural areas, of the movement of the White population from the rural areas to the urban complexes began in the early ’thirties after the predecessor of this National Party Government had at the end of the ’twenties proceeded to introduce industrialization into this country as well with the establishment of Iscor. It is an absolutely normal process in any developing country that such a shift should take place, that people should move from the rural areas to the urban complexes.

In 1932 you made the farmers on the farms bankrupt.

No, that hon. member cannot even go and speak in Sea Point any more, but now he is speaking here where protection is afforded him. The development of South Africa has been the cause of the movement from the rural to the urban areas. Nor did this take place at the expense of agriculture. I want to repeat that this Government is sympathetically disposed towards the farmers, and that it is concerned about them. That is why our leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, said that he would not leave the wool farmers in the lurch. The development process, however, is a development symptom. That is what is happening. I know that when one finds oneself in a small town it is not a pleasant sight to see that that town has become depopulated. But one must also take into account to some extent at least the process of town development and the reasons why towns have been established at specific places. In the previous century, when most of the smaller towns in South Africa were established, they were established at a place where the necessary Government services and school and church facilities could be made available. The towns were laid out in such a way that one could travel from the one to the other in a day’s time with the means of transport available at that time. A person took his horse and carriage, loaded up his wife and children, rode to church in the morning and returned again at night. That is why we find that the smallest towns are separated by a distance of 25 to 30 miles. But with our modern means of transport, with our better communication system, including telecommunication and road links, there is greater mobility among the population. Now it is much easier to drive from one town to another or to the nearest regional town or city to make purchases. Hence a distinction between everyday requisites, requisites needed on a medium term basis, and requisites needed on a long-term basis, has been made as far as the consumer or the public is concerned. In this way the public purchase groceries at a place nearby because they need them frequently. Furniture they will buy somewhere else, perhaps because they need it less, because they want a wider choice, and because it is easier to get there as a result of modern transport. Hence the system of a development of smaller towns and the movement of the public from the smaller towns to the regional towns. This is an absolutely normal process we are dealing with.

This process has not taken place at the expense of agriculture. The agricultural production of South Africa is many times greater than it was 30 years ago. Nor is the quality of the products any poorer than it was in those years. On the contrary, it is far better, because this is a natural process which is in progress.

The only step taken by this Government which earned the praise of the hon. member for Newton Park is the stock withdrawal scheme which was introduced to help farmers. These stock withdrawal schemes must inevitably result in some farmers leaving their farms. It cannot be otherwise. The legislation which the hon. member approved in principle last year, but the details of which he opposed, namely the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, which prevents agricultural land from being subdivided into smaller units, is surely of a consolidatory nature. Surely it is as clear as can be that if two farms are consolidated, one farmer must leave. Where must he go to?

Yes, where must he go to?

To the towns. Let us now understand something else clearly. One of the best investments which exists for agriculture is a proper, ordered and well-developed urban complex, because that is where one finds the market for those agricultural products. Let us get one thing straight, once and for all. It is not possible and it will never be possible to keep a specific farmer on a specific farm. This Government has, however, given thought to the rural areas and to rural developments. In spite of the boasting of all the Opposition members to the effect that it is really they to whom the credit is due for this development, I just want to tell them that it is this Government which established the Orange River Scheme, that it is this Government which built the Hendrik Verwoerd dam, and that it is this Government which built a tunnel which is among the longest in the world, and with one purpose—which is? The specific purpose was to bring back what was probably in the vicinity of 5,000 farmers to the rural areas. Those 5,000 farmers could not all return to De Aar and Beaufort West. I do not want to single out De Aar and Beaufort West as black sheep, but the people cannot make a living there. That is not all. Recently this Government announced a great new development, namely the development of a railway line from Sishen in the Northern Cape to Saldanha on the West Coast. That means that the railway lines will traverse a tremendously large area of the Cape.

Are you still going to build it?

Yes, they are going to build it.

When?

Just as the National Party has up to now built everything it said it was going to build. That is development which is going to be brought to a specific area because the opportunity is there. But to utter the kind of nonsense that hon. member uttered here, viz. that the Government should merely establish industries in the interests of agriculture and bring these to the various smaller towns, is nonsensical. How can it? Surely an investigation has to be made. That is why a policy of decentralization of this Government is a very clear one. It is the policy of the State to decentralize for economic reasons. I also want to say that if that decentralization for economic reasons can also succeed in supplying a large number of Bantu with work within their homelands, then one has the ideal situation. In other words, this idea of decentralization has a dual purpose. In the first instance, consideration must be given to the recognized benefits which are contained in decentralization of activities based on purely economic, strategic and social grounds for any country. In the second instance, it must also be based on the implementation of the accepted national policy of separate development. In this respect the National Party and this Government will play its part in a realistic manner, after they have investigated the situation properly and know what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fauresmith who has just spoken, is a medical practitioner, but nevertheless represents a rural constituency in the southern Free State, an area where things are not going too well with the farmers either. When he rose to his feet, I thought that he would support this motion. That is the least I expected from him as a representative of that area. I do not know whether he supports the motion of the hon. member for Newton Park, but he condemned the motion of the hon. member for Newton Park from beginning to end, and spoke of the good work of the Government and the assistance which it has up to now rendered. But when did any one of us say that we were not grateful to the Government for what it has done in regard to farming, and particularly in recent times with the stock withdrawal scheme? However, the hon. member for Fauresmith stated that an inevitable result of the withdrawal scheme would be that many farmers would leave their farms. It will only be the farmers whose number of stock fall within the higher subsidy scheme, who would leave their farms. In other words, the farmers who are farming with 1,000 to 1,200 head of stock. [Interjections.] The big farmer cannot do this, because he cannot take R1 per sheep for the balance of his stock.

I was not talking about the big farmers only.

The hon. member asked whether this was not a desirable and a natural depopulation of the rural areas. The depopulation of the rural areas, to a minor extent, is perhaps a natural phenomenon, because it is happening in other countries and not only in South Africa. However, the rate of depopulation of the rural areas during the last two to three years has been abnormal. The situation is abnormal because any farmer sitting here, regardless of what province he comes from, will admit that the number of farms in his immediate vicinity which are in the market and for which there are no buyers is legion. I know of wards where 10 years ago there were 24 farmers and where there are at present only four. This is not natural depopulation; it is unnatural depopulation. How could it be anything else? The farmer also sends his sons to university today. Does the hon. member really expect, that with the future offered by agriculture and, in particular, the wool industry, that the young man who has graduated at university will, even on the insistence of his father, return to the farm? Why should he do so? Are we in favour of large consortiums buying up all the land and establishing large units in order to promote agriculture?

Such as is happening where?

As is happening in many places, even in the Transvaal. I can mention them here. The hon. the Minister is as much aware of this as I am.

Name one.

Hon. members can ask the Deputy Minister. He knows about it. He knows for example what went on in the Bethal district. The fact remains that if the farming community as such, the average farmer and even the small farmer who see their way clear to making a living, are not given a firm foundation, the area passes into the hands of big, capitally strong undertakings which purchase the land not so much in order to carry on farming activities, but to enrich themselves through, for example, keeping slaughter stock on that land. When the land passes into the hands of those people, farming becomes unsound. Hon. members know what I am talking about.

The hon. member for Fauresmith said that this depopulation was not such a serious matter. I wonder whether the hon. member knows what the figures for the Free State over the last 10 years are. He speaks so easily of depopulation having taken place only in the southern Free State. According to the statistics the Free State White population has increased over the last 10 years by 25,000 and the non-White population by 280,000.

What does that prove?

It proves that that increase took place in and around Bloemfontein, Kroonstad and the gold mining areas and that the population in the rural areas decreased accordingly. If the hon. member for Stellenbosch cannot realize that, then I do not know. If the total White population of the Free State has increased by 25,000 over the past 10 years, and one compares the expansion which has taken place in the urban areas, then surely it is obvious that there has been depopulation in the rural areas.

When were you last in the Free State, Oom Jan?

The hon. member for Stellenbosch can jump up and make his own speech later. If he would interrupt me less frequently, I will be able to complete mine. When we speak of the depopulation of the rural areas we think of a multitude of towns in the Karoo. Then we are not only thinking of towns such as those to which the hon. member for Fauresmith referred, when he said “Well then, it was a day’s journey by horse and carriage, and that is why they established a town there”. We think of towns which are situated along the main railway line and the national roads. I am thinking for example of a town like Cradock. Sir, do you know that the White population of Cradock has decreased by 1,200 over the past 10 years?

Hear, hear!

I hear someone shouting “Hear, hear”. I do not know where he comes from.

Somewhere between Johannesburg and Stilfontein.

When we reach the situation where the White population of a rural town of the standard of Cradock has decreased over the past 10 years, there is something drastically wrong with agriculture. I did not think there was one representative of agriculture in this debate who would be able to say anything against this resolution, which requests the Government to apply certain methods. When we discuss the methods which are being applied we think back to the many debates we have already had here on rates of interest which are too high for the farmers to bear. In any case, they cannot go on any more. We think of how we have discussed the possibility of alleviating to a certain extent the burden of debt of the farmers by using the red pencil when they cannot fend for themselves. I do not at this stage want to say that all these recommendations must be carried out. But I do want to say that if some of them are not carried out, there is no rosy future for agriculture, whether it be agronomy, stock-breeding, or anything else. Then we cannot expect the young men to return to the rural areas, because they will not want to do so. Nor do I take it amiss of them for not wanting to. I do not take it amiss of a young man who has a degree today for saying that he is not going to go farming. I cannot take it amiss of him, because I cannot give him or my own sons or my neighbour’s sons the assurance that there is any future for them in agriculture: that they have any chance of liquidating their capital debts which they have incurred over a period of 25 or 30 years, and that they will be able to become independent farmers.

You are now doing agriculture a disservice.

What farmer is there who has over the last 10 years been in a position to reduce his debt to such an extent that he feels he is getting somewhere with his burden of debt?

There is a much better future for the farmers than for the United Party.

Sir, I should like to confine myself in the time at my disposal to the sheep and wool farming industry as such, and here I want to refer to the southern Free State and the whole of the Cape. I do not want to refer only to that area to which the hon. member for Fauresmith was referring when he said that no people in the Eastern Cape had withdrawn from agriculture. He knows nothing about the Eastern Cape; it is too far away from him. I am speaking about the southern Free State and the whole of the Cape, with the exception of the western area where people farm with wheat and fruit. Sir, something must be done to save the situation in those parts of the country which have now for the past seven, eight, nine and 10 years been experiencing protracted droughts to which there seems to be no end. Rains have in fact fallen now in some of those areas, but now the people are faced with the problem of locusts, caterpillars, etc. I simply do not know how the situation is to be rehabilitated.

I should like to second what the hon. member for Newton Park said, viz. that we make applications to the hon. the Minister of Planning for the establishment of far more growth points. Sir, a few days ago I received a reply from the Minister to representations I had made to him to the effect that a certain place should be declared to be a growth point, and I want at this stage to say thank you very much to the Minister for the prompt attention he always gives to correspondence I address to him. The hon. the Minister, quite rightly, said that there were so many places in regard to which application was being made to the effect that they be declared growth points, that it is an impossible task to comply with all the requests. I accept that. I accept that almost every place today is making application to be regarded as a growth point. But the hon. the Minister also said—and I am glad to hear this —that a special committee has been appointed which is now dealing with all these applications and which is investigating which places may be regarded as growth points. Obviously we cannot declare every town or every area to be a growth point, but I want to suggest that the growth points be centralized in such a way that they can also help neighbouring towns and areas; in other words that there should be one growth point in every area where there can be larger schools to which parents can send their children instead of to the coastal cities or other large places in the interior. Industries can then be centralized there. These need not necessarily be industries connected with agriculture. I cannot understand that argument at all. It can be any kind of industry, which can with good result be centralized. I cannot see why one man should not manufacture windows in De Aar while another manufactures screws in Beaufort West. Surely it is obvious that it is as easy to do so as in East London or Port Elizabeth for example. They still have to obtain their steel and their wire from Iscor, and in addition these have to be conveyed over longer distances. Sir, that is the reason why we have in the first instance addressed our representations to the hon. the Minister of Planning, whose committee has to deal with this matter. Our plea is that growth points should be determined with the utmost speed, so that people can know where they must go, and so that a stop can be put to the depopulation of the rural areas. One can then go to those growth points and not necessarily to the cities.

I then come to what the hon. the Prime Minister said in regard to wool in the no-confidence debate, and also to what the hon. the Minister of Agriculture said when he addressed a meeting of the National Woolgrowers Association, namely that the Government will be partner of the wool industry in regard to the problems facing the wool industry. We should very much like to know how far the plans have progressed, over and above the plans which already exist. The aspect to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred in regard to the planning of the southern hemisphere countries has to do more with the marketing of the commodity. When we talk about the marketing of the commodity, then we have had the experience of what happened very recently where there are already three countries which are co-operating in regard to marketing protection. We know what effect this has had up to this stage. We also know that there are many deficiencies in the present schemes for the marketing of wool. But above all, we know that even if we should succeed in eliminating the marketing problems which exist today, we will still not have succeeded in bringing the price of the product to a level where it is profitable for the wool farmer. Other methods will have to be utilized. When the hon. the Minister of Agriculture said before the congress of the National Woolgrowers that the Government would be a partner of the wool farmers as far as its problems are concerned, I take it that he meant that if the funds which the woolgrowers have at their disposal—the R35 million, or whatever it is—have been depleted as a result of the payment of a price to the farmers above the existing market price, the Government will then step in and help. I see problems in this regard. If the market should be as it is at present next season and if the assistance is to be of the kind the wool industry has given itself by means of its own levies up to this stage, then it will be a tremendous amount for which the Government will have to stand surety for. But the fact remains that if price protection is not given in the first instance, and if in the second instance plans are not made by means of which stability can be brought to the wool industry, and in the third instance if it is not possible, in terms of the third leg of this motion, to create confidence in the future of the agricultural industry, particularly the sheep and wool industry, then I do not know where we are going. Every day we hear farmers saying: “Ach, I wonder whether it is still worthwhile farming with merino sheep? I think I will go in for cross-bred lambs instead”. Sir, we must not forget that the wool industry, which has for many years earned R100 million and more in foreign currency for our country, apart from the 13 per cent or 14 per cent of the production processed in the country, is a valuable industry. It is almost a centuries old industry. The wool industry was the pride of South Africa. If we cannot retain the pride of the people, then we must see to it that they are able to retain their self-respect; we must make it possible for them to retain their self-respect. I want to make a special plea here to the effect that hon. members should all support this motion, instead of being divided in regard to a motion of this nature, which asks nothing more or nothing less than that the Government should make a special attempt to place agriculture on a firm foundation.

Mr. Speaker, if we have to support a motion from the side of the Opposition in this spirit of pessimism, they are expecting too much from this side of the House. If we persist in this type of doom prophecy and talk in regard to agriculture, and especially in regard to the sheep and wool industry, we will eventually have no more farmers left to carry on farming and in that case the rural areas will become even more depopulated. Sir, I have two sons. The one is going to work for Fanie Botha in Water Affairs, and the other will go back to the sheep and wool industry as sure as I am standing here.

Order! The hon. member must refer to the hon. the Minister.

Forgive me, Sir; I meant the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. Sir, I shall not discourage him from going into agriculture, for the simple reason that he has a love for the soil and does not look only at the economic aspect of matters. Because of his inborn love for the soil, he will use his managerial ability to see to it that he will make a success of the undertaking. We must stop talking the agricultural industry into its grave, because this is what we are doing. We should cause a spirit of optimism to prevail in the country for a change. I want to associate myself with what was said by the chairman of the Wool Board in the statement he made only two weeks ago, i.e. that we should not become pessimistic because of the setbacks suffered by the wool industry, and condemn everything related to the wool industry, because there was a future in the wool industry and in this part of our country if we approached the matter realistically and properly. This is what the Opposition is overlooking. I just want to point out a few things. The hon. member for East London (City) said consideration should be given to writing off of certain burdens of debt. I wonder whether the hon. member would be prepared to come and say that at Rietbron, because I know of people in Rietbron who, in spite of a ten-year drought, have been struggling hard and have tried everything in their power to reduce their debts in respect of their fodder loans, etc. They told me as well as this Deputy Minister, that the day we considered writing off burdens of debt, we must not forget the man who had conscientiously fulfilled his obligations towards the department in spite of problems and difficulties. We should bear this in mind as well.

The hon. member for Newton Park spoke about empty schools and hostels. I am glad he mentioned that, because in regard to education as well, this Government and the Cape Provincial Administration in particular, have done everything in their power to ensure the creation of every facility in the rural areas. But what happened then? When the Opposition moved a motion of no-confidence in the Provincial Council a few years ago, their most severe point of attack was the question of these empty schools and hostels. But today the hon. member says here with tears in his eyes that schools and hostels are standing empty and that the rural areas are still becoming depopulated in spite of the schools and hostels which have been built. That constituted their major point of attack.

In regard to businesses in the rural areas. I want to agree with him, because I know that things are going badly with some businesses in my constituency. But now I just want to put one question to the hon. member for Newton Park. At the time when he was still farming at Richmond, where did he buy his requirements?

There.

In that case I acknowledge that he was right, but I want to tell you today, and I want to address this especially to the rural areas of the Cape Province, that we are so fond of saying that depopulation must be checked, but what are we ourselves doing as farmers to check that depopulation? What are we ourselves doing to ensure that the businesses can keep going? Why do we have to buy all our requirements in the large cities? Why can we not support our smaller towns and buy our requirements in those towns? This is a matter which is very close to my heart and I am saying this without being at all afraid of political implications. If our farmers are genuinely interested in our towns, they will use their means in those towns and not spend their money in Port Elizabeth.

I want to confine myself to sub-section (a) of this motion dealing with agriculture, and more specifically to the Karoo region and the Southern Free State. We have to ask ourselves why depopulation occurs. The first and probably one of the most important reasons, is a purely economic one. If a man cannot make a reasonable living on a certain unit, he gets out and sells to another man. Surely it is logical that if a man cannot make a reasonable living, he gets out. We have experienced a decade in which land fetched exceptionally good prices. Surely people had the right to sell that land at that stage and to find a better livelihood where they could earn a better living. Surely it is logical that we should have an exodus as a result of that.

The second major reason for the depopulation of the rural areas is droughts. In my lifetime we have had, and ones I know of, four large exoduses, especially from the rural areas of the Cape Province. The first occurred in 1927/28, at the time of that major drought, the second in 1933/34 when we had another drought and a depression as well. Subsequently, there was an exodus in the post-war period when the prices of land rocketed and people sold small units simply because they could obtain a good price for their land; and then there is the present disastrous drought, during which one has had an exodus like never before. In spite of considerable aid to the small stock industry, aid we have never had before in the history of the small stock industry, this depopulation has occurred.

If we have to make an analysis of the problem of depopulation, how are we to combat it? I would say there are four basic factors by means of which one can combat depopulation, i.e. by ensuring income stability and a decent livelihood; by ensuring such protection for one of the natural resources, i.e. the soil, that income stability will be assured; by applying measures of aid in times or disastrous droughts in order to provide sufficient protection against complete destruction; and in the fourth place, by ensuring that units are large enough to be administered as economic units for ensuring a decent livelihood.

When we come to point (a) of these measures to combat depopulation by ensuring income stability, the wool farmer unfortunately has to contend today not only with a serious drought in most parts—some parts are still experiencing a drought—but also with a slump in wool prices and to a certain extent with a slump in mohair prices as well. What is now being done in an attempt to reduce the effect of this severe slump? In the first place, there is the Wool Commission’s floor price scheme which has been operating for many years, also in the time of the hon. member for East London City. I can assure you that this floor price scheme, has caused millions of rand to be returned to the wool farmer’s pocket over the years. In addition we have had the Wool Commission’s supplementary price scheme in the most recent season. Up to the end of January, an amount of more than R8 million was paid out by means of this supplementary price scheme. If things remain constant, in other words if the present price on the world market can be maintained, plus the anticipated 20 per cent decrease in production, we will pay out R14.5 million at the end of this season by means of these supplementary prices. It truly is a credit to the wool farmer of South Africa that he had been able to ensure in good times that we would be able to use these amounts in these difficult times for giving him a better price. In passing, I just want to say that the wool farmer of South Africa is privileged in this respect today because at this stage he can obtain 30 per cent more than his Australian fellow farmer because of this supplementary price. At the moment he is receiving 30 per cent more for his wool. No stone is being left unturned to improve marketing matters and a great deal of progress has already been made with investigations in this respect, here as well as in other partnership countries. In passing, I just want to mention the committee of enquiry appointed by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to investigate marketing. I want to mention the measures in operation in Australia, where they are also trying as a matter of urgency to improve our marketing system which has perhaps become obsolete over the years.

Then there is the possibility of Government aid. In the scheme which I have mentioned, i.e. our supplementary price scheme, we have an assurance, and I should like to satisfy the hon. member for East London City in that respect. At the N.W.G. Congress, we obtained the assurance from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and it was repeated by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech in the no-confidence debate. Therefore we have every confidence that it will in fact come when it is necessary. To this I want to add that during the past three years, R4 million was given to the wool industry for research and publicity.

In terms of point (b) it must be ensured that the natural resources—i.e. the soil— will enjoy such protection that it will be able to support the farmer. For many years, since 1946, astronomic amounts have been spent on soil conservation in our country. With a view to soil conservation, loans amounting to millions of rand have been made to farmers at a subsidized rate of interest of 5 per cent. Gradually, however, we came to realize that we were not achieving our ultimate objective. In 1969 this Government introduced legislation not only to streamline the Soil Conservation Act, but also to take persons who did not want to apply soil conservation by the scruff of their necks and to give them a shake so that they would be obliged to protect their natural resources. What did the United Party do at that time? Surely this was a long-term measure. In 1969 they opposed the Soil Conservation Bill with might and main. This is a measure which was in fact aimed at saving our natural resources, the soil, from certain destruction. They opposed that measure.

We opposed only certain clauses of that measure.

Which clauses did they oppose? The very clause which sought to take a man by the scruff of his neck. They did this for the sake of a vote or two. I want to point out that we have a stock withdrawal scheme. I am glad that hon. members on the opposite side have highly praised that scheme. I am pleased that we have reached unanimity in this respect, because I think that it is the largest scheme which has ever been applied in this country as regards soil conservation. I am glad this Government has had the courage of its convictions to utilize these amounts in order to save our soil. I want to appeal to all small-stock farmers to support this scheme, because it is and remains the only scheme for the future. It is and remains the only scheme which will enable our soil to support us again.

Point (c) calls for measures of aid to be applied in times of drought. I do not think there is any need to debate this aspect. When I think of the fodder subsidies and the fodder loans which were paid out, as well as the railway rebates, I want to ask myself today whether we were realistic in granting all these loans and subsidies. I am doing this with the greatest sense of responsibility of which I am capable. I want to ask whether certain farmers in this country, who owe as much as from R30 to R40 for each small-stock unit in respect of fodder loans, will ever be able to repay those loans in their lifetime. I would admit that it would be foolish to withdraw certain measures during a disastrous drought, but I want to ask that we should evince a greater sense of realism in future in regard to granting this type of aid. During a disastrous drought we should not plunge our people further into debt. We should, however, grant loans and subsidies with more circumspection. I am pleased that, as a result of the report of the Marais Commission, the Government has already decided that in future drought relief will be granted only in respect of units where conservation farming is being applied. This was imperative.

In the disaster area in which I live, special measures were taken to keep the farmer on his land. There a farmer can obtain a loan of R30 for himself, R30 in respect of his wife and R10 for every child. If he is no longer creditworthy, he receives an ex gratia payment of R35 for himself. R35 in respect of his wife and R10 for each child. In addition to that a farmer can obtain a labourer’s subsidy of R4 per labourer per week. Sir, is this too little aid? I want to ask the Opposition in all fairness whether this is not sufficient aid to keep a farmer on his land in a time of emergency. I do not even want to talk about agricultural credit where, if a man has problems, he can be helped by the dear Land Bank of the hon. member for Newton Park. I want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park, that if it were not for the Land Bank hundreds of farmers would have left the Karoo and the rural areas already. There is the interest subsidy; there is the consolidation of brokers’ loans which we have obtained at a cheaper rate of interest; there are production loans which are obtainable from brokers as well as from the Department of Agricultural Credit, and this is an amount of more than R4,000 per year. What are the rates of interest in our country today? The highest State or semi-State rate of interest, i.e. that of the Land Bank, is 6 per cent today. This is the most expensive. The rate of interest of Agricultural Credit is 5 per cent. It is a subsidized rate of interest.

What about the wool brokers?

I am not talking about the wool brokers, but about the Land Bank loans.

One cannot obtain those.

Unfortunately the hon. member has moved from De Aar. He does not know the position there very well.

I now come to the final point, i.e. how to combat depopulation. We can combat it if we ensure that a man has a large enough unit to enable him to make a decent livelihood. I just want to read one paragraph from the published interim report of the Marais Commission—

In all fairness I want to ask today whether a man and his family will be able to make ends meet with R3,000 per annum, if he has to send his sons to university, give his daughters further education and still maintain a decent standard of living. In 1967 the net income of more than half the units in the Karoo region was less than R3,000. A third was less than R2,000 and 17 per cent was less than R1,000. How on earth must those people manage? Seeing that this was in 1967, I wonder what the figures are today. I quote more from the report of the Marais Commission-—

Mr. Speaker, our greatest problem is to be found in the fact that there are units which are too small. Let us face the fact that this is so. Last hear the Government introduced a measure which will ensure that no further subdivision of agricultural land will take place without the Minister’s approval. What did the United Party do at the time? They opposed the Act with might and main. This is a measure which is directly aimed at preventing the fragmentation of our agricultural land, as contained in this report. And yet the United Party comes along today and asks us to support a motion which will check the depopulation of the rural areas. What nonsense is this? Because of the rise in the standard of living it is simply impossible for these people to continue making a living on these small units. We must suggest larger units with all the might we have.

I just want to mention one example. In my constituency there is a study committee which investigated a certain area in which seven farmers are farming on a unit of 8,000 morgen. On that unit eight tractors, seven motor cars, six light trucks, etc., are in use and there are 24 labourers. That study committee established that if one farmer were to remain on that farm and the rest were to seek other employment, that total unit would be able to produce R22,000 more per annum as a result of savings. Perhaps this is the solution for many of the farmers on small units in the Karoo, i.e. that we should not only farm co-operatively and use our labour and machinery co-operatively, but also consolidate certain small units, appoint one man to administer and farm it while the rest find other employment. Let us face the fact for a change. For that reason I said at the beginning that we should evince a sense of realism in discussing depopulation. We must not talk nonsense and say that the Government should keep all the people in the rural areas. That is impossible. Purely economic reasons determine that he should leave. This Government’s measures are all in fact designed to help the small man. There are all the many measures of aid and relief.

I want to conclude by saying that the wool industry has always been an industry which has stood on its own feet. At the moment it is experiencing problems and we know that the Government is behind us to support us, but do not make a begging industry of the wool industry, because that is not what we want to be.

Mr. Speaker, in reading this motion I gained the impression that this was an opportunity for making positive suggestions to help to place the agricultural industry on a sound basis, because I was expecting positive suggestions to come from the Opposition. I came to this debate with an open mind this afternoon. The only request made by the hon. member for Newton Park was that debts should be written off. That is what it amounts to. His practical solution was that we should write off the debts of certain farmers who are in financial difficulties. However, in the preceding few hours we had been attacked about tax increases. These two things simply cannot be reconciled. But what bothered me most was the fact that in introducing this motion, which I had thought we would not make a political issue, the hon. member used the following words—

I know that when hon. members on the opposite side manage to assemble a few farmers at a meeting, they say at those meetings that growth points are being created for the Bantu but not for the Karoo areas. That is the sting in this matter. I regarded this motion as one which could be discussed here in a nice way. But that hon. member should tell those farmers whether those Bantu in the Bantu area can get a subsidy of 55 per cent on the erection of any waterwork or pipeline. He must tell them whether the Bantu can get a subsidy of 55 per cent on the erection of a fence, whether they can get a subsidy of 50 per cent on fodder purchases, and whether they can get a loan of 50 per cent, without security, from the Department of Agricultural Credit on the rest of the fodder which they cannot buy cash. People already owing R30 per sheep can get this loan. When the hon. member wants to make a political issue of this matter he should ask whether Bantu can get this. The hon. member must not try to catch us in this ham-handed way. I am very disappointed. I had thought the hon. member would come forward with a positive idea in this debate.

At the same time we must not proceed from the assumption either that the Government is not sympathetically disposed as regards this problem of depopulation. We do not deny that depopulation is taking place. It is taking place, and we have appointed a commission of inquiry in this connection. This commission issued a fine report. The commission found that it is not only South Africa which has this problem to contend with. In the report it is stated that in 1957 a conference of all European countries was held in Scheveningen in the Netherlands. At that conference it was stated that the cities in Europe were becoming so large that they were becoming congested, which caused development problems and created mass-minded people. The report goes on as follows—

This was the finding of the congress in the Netherlands as far as European depopulation of the rural areas is concerned. In the rural areas one can earn a certain amount, but with the manpower shortage in our country one can easily earn twice as much in the cities with their bright lights, with all their amenities, their tennis courts and swimming baths. Must we now, despite this fact, take such a person by the scruff of the neck and tell him, “You may be able to get a good price for your land, but the Government says you may not sell and is compelling you to remain in the rural areas”? The hon. member for East London City says that there are innumerable farms in all four provinces on the market without there being any buyers for them. Why should one make such a statement? I am looking for a piece of land to buy, but I simply cannot find it in the Transvaal. Why must the hon. member generalize?

In order to give hon. members an indication of the position in the United States, I just want to read to hon. members what President Nixon said last month, and I quote:

This is precisely what the hon. the Minister of Planning is going to explain to the hon. members during the discussion of the Planning Vote. The Planning Advisory Council is assisting us in this. It is assisting us in order to see what we can do in this connection. I admit that this is a problem, and no-one is trying to hide it. But one must be realistic too. Where are our large concentrations of population? They are in the high-rainfall areas. Now it so happens that we find our coal deposits, our iron ore, our mineral resources and our Bantu homelands in those areas. These are the very areas where labour is obtainable. But our country also has a low-rainfall area, of which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet gave us such a striking account. The Karoo area was a good one once; it was an area where the people could look you in the face and where they were proud of being wool farmers—they still are today—but wool prices have dropped to almost as low a level as during the depression years. The conditions prevailing there are practically those of a depression. What are we doing about that? The people are in that area and now hon. members come and tell us that we should establish growth points in that area. The hon. member now wants us to establish a factory there which will manufacture screws and nails. It is easy to say that. The hon. the Minister is looking into these matters, and he is considering what we can do to send matters in that direction, but what has the Government done as far as certain schemes are concerned? The Orange River scheme is not the only one. Enormous sums of money have been spent on irrigation schemes and therefore we have to pay more tax. R450 million is being spent on building the Orange River scheme. We are not paying for the scheme with washers; we need money to build it, and therefore we have to pay more tax. Think of the Makatini Flats. Speaking of development, it is ironical that a number of years ago there were very few Whites and Bantu living in the Vaalharts area. Then it was decided to start an irrigation scheme at Vaalharts. The hon. member said that we were making the rural areas black with Bantu. We then got the opportunity to build an irrigation scheme at Vaalharts. What is the position today? At the towns of Vaalharts, Jan Kempdorp and the entire settlement there are 5,520 Whites and 21,325 Bantu and Coloured people today. It is in the nature of our agriculture, particularly in the case of labour-intensive irrigation land, that there have to be Black labourers as well. I want to warn hon. members in advance that they need not think that the Orange River scheme will result in the population there becoming whiter. There will also be a certain influx of Blacks, because their labour is required there.

I have told hon. members previously, and I want to repeat, that the person who is near to the heart of this Government is the small producer. He is the person who is satisfied with not enjoying continual economic prosperity, as the man in the city does. The sympathy of the Government lies with the small farmer in the rural areas. Last year we tried to protect that small farmer. We asked the hon. the Opposition to assist us in doing so. There are large consortiums which are swallowing up these small farmers, and the hon. member for East London (City) referred to this. We want to help them, to take just one industry, by saying that they may not keep more than 10,000 laying hens per year. The hon. member laughs, but this is a serious matter to me. Hon. members on the opposite side opposed that measure tooth and nail at the time. Therefore they did not care whether the small man went under as long as they could get eggs cheaply from large companies. Today the hon. member comes along and adopts this attitude. The hon. member for Fauresmith and others referred to all the assistance which the Government is offering in the form of agricultural credit. A great deal of criticism has been levelled at the Government. It has even been said that the stock withdrawal scheme is in fact only a bluff. Yet the number of farmers who entered for the stock reduction scheme stood at 2,760 at the end of December, 1970. Quite a number of applications are still awaiting formal approval. The area of the farms already participating in the scheme is 9,300,000 hectare. Stock already withdrawn comes to 1,105,000. The total number of persons participating in the veld reclamation scheme is 2,511 and the area of the farms entered, is 9 million morgen. Camps not used were 2½ morgen in extent and the total expenditure up to 31st March, 1970, was R2,123,000. Because of the fact that the farmer is only paid out after six months, this amount is going to be considerably higher. This is the assistance which the Government is offering because of the very fact that it realizes what constitutes one of the major problems of the farmers. The hon. member talks about placing agriculture on a sound footing again. Just imagine! How does one place agriculture on a sound footing if you are faced with certain problems? Over the past 20 years our population growth has been 2.36 per cent per year. The growth of agricultural production was 3.96 per cent per year. We are producing surpluses and where must they go to? I know that hon. members on the opposite side are continually referring to prices and making suggestions as to how we can keep our agriculture sound. From 1948 to 1968 the prices of agricultural produce rose by 2 per cent per year on an average, while production costs rose by 2.35 per cent per year on an average.

How can one make a living then?

One can make a living if you are a good farmer. It is easy to ask, “How can one make a living?” What are we to do if the price of petrol rises and if the overseas price of a product which has to be exported is lower than the domestic price? In 1946 a White Paper was issued by the office of the then Prime Minister, the late Gen. Smuts. I have a high opinion of this White Paper, because it was a practical one and stood with both feet on the ground as far as prices were concerned. In it the following is stated (translation)—

Gen. Smuts’s office said this, and hon. members on the opposite side must bear this in mind when we discuss these matters and when we talk of placing our agriculture on a sound footing again. Mr. Speaker, in spite of all these factors South African agricultural production has doubled in the past 10 years. This afternoon an hon. member asked who could get up and say he was standing in a queue in order to obtain a piece of meat. Which hon. member has ever gone to bed hungry for one night? Not one of them. All of them are well-fed, fat and sleek.

Sir, we must be realistic. That is why I say that the Government realizes that one cannot allow indiscriminate depopulation to take place. An hon. member said here that the farmer himself should also do something about the matter. He should look to the industry and the shopkeeper in his small rural town. We sometimes have to search our own hearts too. We must not use arguments of this kind for political gain. The farmers are shrewd. They catch hon. members out when they come to them with these stories. While we are talking about wool, the Opposition must at the same time bear in mind that there are other industries too which are developing in competition with agriculture. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the “non-production” in America, where a farmer is paid not to produce.

The “product support policy”.

It has not proved to be a success. An American publication, Foreign Agriculture, says the following—

These are the Americans who pay their farmers 157 billion dollars not to produce. Then the other countries came along and said, “Now we have a market again”. I quote further—

I say to that hon. member over there at the back, who asked how one can make ends meet in the face of higher production costs, that it applies to all these countries, but he and the hon. member for Newton Park scornfully referred to the fact that we speak of efficiency. I shall talk about it until I am blue in the face, because I am not prepared to represent an industry here in which one can simply allow inefficiency. The farmers have also grown tired of the stories that one can simply say that we should have a system in terms of which we should spoonfeed the inefficient person. That person must go to the city. I quote further—

If the hon. the Minister says here that we must work harder, hon. members laugh. I say that if the American farmers can treble their labour turnover, the farmers in South Africa, too, are prepared and able to do this out of pride in their country and nothing else, not political gain either. But we must reach the stage once again where we say to the farmers, as the hon. members for Graaff-Reinet and Fauresmith said, “Do not come here with sob-stories. We know them. We are aware of the problem in certain Karoo areas.” There are some very unfortunate farmers. The hon. member asked what assistance was being granted. He referred to the Prime Minister and said that he had made certain promises at the Sundays River Valley. That is an entirely incorrect insinuation. We have granted special assistance in the areas of Laingsburg, Sutherland, Prince Albert, Beaufort West, Willowmore, Steytlerville and part of Uniondale. Additional assistance has now been granted specifically to the Sundays River Valley. In terms of that assistance uncreditworthy farmers receive an allowance of R35 per husband, R35 per wife, R10 per child and R4 per Bantu labourer per month. All of this is non-repayable. This is an out and out grant because we know that those people are down on their knees due to climatic conditions, but do hon. members know how those people feel when they receive such a grant? Do they think it is pleasant to have to receive such a grant? If this Government did not care for the rural population, it would just have sat back and folded its arms and those people would have had to leave the rural areas. However, we realize that we have to plan in order to keep the people there as far as is practically possible.

I want to conclude by telling the hon. member that we may reproach each other in the political field, but one thing is certain, and that is that the conscience of this Government will always be clear when it comes to those who have to earn a living from agriculture, and more specifically, when it comes to the protection which is necessary to guard against the depopulation of the rural areas by the smaller man. Depopulation will take place. It is an economic law throughout the world. A sifting process is taking place. In 30 years’ time we will have to feed 50 million people in this country. Therefore it is the person who farms in the most efficient way who will make a success of agriculture, but if we were to listen only to negative talk, we would do our own industry a great deal of harm.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister has entered the debate so early. I would have liked to hear him summing up at the end. I am also sorry that both he and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet apparently did not fully grasp the motion before the House. I believe that it is a very excellent motion. It strongly urges the Government “to consider the advisability of, inter alia, curbing the depopulation or rural areas, caused by the movement of Whites by—(a) placing the agricultural industry on a sound footing; (b) stimulating the development of commerce and industry in these areas; and (c) taking the necessary steps to increase confidence in these areas”. Both those hon. gentlemen dealt with the motion entirely from the agricultural point of view. The motion is much broader and more important than that. I was aware of a tone of anger in the Deputy Minister’s speech, and I am quite sure that that anger was probably engendered by the tears in his heart because he knows that we do have troubles. I believe that he is sincerely hoping to overcome these troubles sooner or later.

As I have said, the importance of this motion is not confined only to the platteland, but to the whole Republic of South Africa and its future economic and political stability. Here I feel bound to return to what I had to say during the no-confidence debate. At the time I spoke of the vital importance of overall planning and the crying need for some portfolio that can override and disentangle the mass of interdepartmental red tape which has come about as a result of departmental empire building on the one hand and by over-legislation in many spheres. In order to plan reliably for the future, one Minister and one department must have many facts at their fingertips, and they must be able to influence many factors. The facts they must have can only be obtained by a full survey of the socio-economics of all regions of the Republic of South Africa, a full survey of the soil and veld coverage and the topography of each area and a complete hydrological survey of all these areas.

In other words, no planning can be done without a full knowledge of the ecology of all the areas concerned. The role of ecologist has not yet been fully appreciated in this country and I believe it is high time that all departments started attracting qualified ecologists to senior posts within their department so that they can assist in the proper planning for the future. The factors in which such a department, as I envisage, should have direct and undisputed interest are both the animate and the inanimate but these factors are vitally important to the creation and the maintenance of infrastructures.

I speak, Sir, first of all of labour which is an animate factor and a human factor and which at the present moment, in the case of both White and Coloured labour, is under the control of the Minister of Labour, while all classes of Bantu labour are directly controlled by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. It is of vital importance that the control and movement of all labour should be controlled by one department so that we can develop in an orderly fashion, so that we can know where our labour is, so that we can know where it is required and so that these factors can be balanced, the one against the other.

Other factors, Sir, are the supply of electricity, reticulated water and communications, all of which are inanimate factors but which are of basic importance to human endeavour in practically every sphere of development in the modem world. These, Sir, are the requirements of a Government that genuinely wishes to decentralize industrial development; these are the basic needs for the future stabilization of the platteland and the peaceful and ordered development of the whole Republic. I believe that such a development, aided by a department with such powers as I have sketched, is long overdue in the Eastern Cape, the Midlands and the so-called Border, but I have stressed the importance of this in other debates and I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily today, except to say that I shall return to different aspects of this development during the Committee Stage of the Budget debate later this year. But, Sir, why has it become necessary to have this motion on the Order Paper? Why has the platteland suddenly become depopulated? Why has the enrolment at our agricultural colleges and universities suddenly dropped so alarmingly?

Only at Grootfontein.

I hear it has happened at other places too. Perhaps the Minister will be able to get back at me because I am coming to the agricultural aspects of it now. Sir, all of us in this House who know anything about farming agree that one of the reasons was the widespread and prolonged drought over vast areas of this country. But, Sir, that is not a reason in itself. We have had droughts and far worse droughts than this in the past, and we have overcome them without such a huge depopulation as we have had this time. I believe that the reasons are a lack of co-ordinated planning and the fact that the Department of Agriculture have over many years based their policy on the premise that we should, like the United States, reduce our farming population to a percentage of approximately 6 per cent to 8 per cent of the total population. Sir, no agricultural economist has been able to tell me whether this percentage is based on White people actively engaged in agriculture against the total White population, or whether it is the percentage of White people actively engaged in agriculture against the whole population, or whether it is all people engaged in agriculture and their families who live on farms. Sir, how can this percentage be worked out anyway when the hon. the Minister cannot tell me how many White people are actively engaged in agriculture? I draw the attention of the House to Question No. 232 which was replied to on Friday last, where I asked the hon. the Minister—

The reply was—

Sir, this surprises me; it surprises me intensely because if the hon. the Minister cannot give me those figures how can he plan? It also surprises me, because I know there is an annual agricultural census from which these figures can be extracted. However, the South African Agricultural Union can tell us approximately how many there are in the whole of the Republic and they put the figure at more or less 85,000 White farmers in the whole of the Republic. These are the farmers who are left on the land. If you take this as a percentage of the present White population of 3.8 million, it works out at 2.2. per cent. But if you take it as a percentage of the whole population of the Republic of 20 million, it is .42 per cent of White people actively engaged in farming who are left on the land.

Sir, what has this policy of reducing the numbers in fact brought about? It has in fact forced the economic brain force of agriculture—the White farmer—off the land and into the cities, never to return, and it has left the untrained and uneducated labour force of non-Whites behind. The Minister told us what was happening at Vaalhartz and what the numbers were. This is what is worrying us; this is one of the reasons why we introduced this motion; it is this imbalance that has arisen; the non-White population on the platteland has gone up while the White population has been reduced. This is unhealthy, Sir, and both sides of the House must agree. That is why we have the second leg of the motion, which asks for industrial development to hold such Whites as can be used there and to employ the excess of the non-White labour that can no longer be employed in modern, up-to-date intensive farming activities. I suggest that the Minister and his economists have a very careful look at this situation and that they revise their policies before it is too late and before they find that they have destroyed the soil of the nation by ruining its farming stock.

Sir, in making my next point, which also has to do with agriculture, I wish to make it very clear that I have the fullest faith and the fullest confidence in the members of the staff of the departments of agriculture. These are dedicated men who are doing their duty often under very trying circumstances. But the point I wish to make is this, and it arises out of another question which I put to the hon. the Minister as to the distribution of the professional and technical staff of his Departments in the Republic.

Taking the professional staff, one finds that out of the total of 1,453 distributed throughout the Republic and the Territory of South-West Africa, 698 or 48 per cent are stationed in the Transvaal. We realize that there are more farmers in the Transvaal, but I am convinced that they do not comprise 48 per cent of our farming population. In any case, when one realizes that 490 of the 698 comprising 33.7 per cent of the total professional staff are stationed in Pretoria and in the vicinity of Pretoria, one realizes that the Transvaal is not so well off after all and that just over a third of our agricultural men are stuck behind a desk in the capital city, when they could be out in the field advising farmers and assisting farmers to overcome their difficulties.

Surely this is a top-heavy organization. The balance seems quite absurd, and it is my belief that the Minister should get down to a little reorganization and redistribution of his professional staff. It seems shocking that over a third of our professional men in the field of agriculture are stuck in a single city. I cannot see the reason for it. One realizes that this is the headquarters of Government and that your senior staff must be there, but surely 33 per cent is a very high percentage to keep in one place.

Clerical staff.

Does the Minister use his professional staff to pay accounts?

They are not all professional people. The lecturers at the universities are included; it includes the personnel at Onderstepoort and at the research stations.

Yes, I realize that, but it is still a high percentage. There seems to be an imbalance and I think the hon. the Minister must go into it. It would certainly restore confidence if you could get more men into the field. I realize that the department is very understaffed too. If you can get more men into the field to go and see the farmers to restore their confidence, it will be a good thing, visits from professional men will assist not only the farmer but also the department in understanding the farmers in many areas better. There are many areas which do not have full-time services and many areas which are far too large for the officers to get around in. The proportion in this country is far higher and certainly does not compare with the little country to the north of us, Rhodesia.

*Finally, after putting all these points, I feel it is quite essential and practical to move the light industries to the rural areas in order to stabilize our population in the rural areas and to ensure that there is no further depopulation of the rural areas. We believe that the farming industry is in a very difficult position. We hope the situation will improve after the rains have come. We also hope that the position will be improved through the application of better methods and through better marketing conditions. As a matter of fact, I feel it would be a tragedy if the present tendency were to continue, and it is tragic to think that, if the present situation were to continue. the poets of the future would probably no longer be able to write “O, Boereplaas, geboortegrond”, but “O, Blaar se woonstel, geboortetronk”!

We on this side of the House probably appreciate it most sincerely that the United Party is concerned about this matter. We are glad and we appreciate it that they too are taking an interest in this matter, because it affects our entire nation. But I do not think they are really concerned about this matter. I think they are more concerned about the depopulation of the United Party in the rural areas. We on this side have for many years been concerned about the fact that depopulation of the rural areas is taking place, and accordingly the matter has for many years been receiving the attention of the authorities. But what was the object of this motion which the United Party moved here? Its object was the same as that of the hon. member for Berea the other day in connection with drugs. They know that the Government is already paying a tremendous amount of attention to certain problems that exist and now they want to give out that they are drawing the public’s attention to them and that all of a sudden they are the people who are concerned about these conditions. Now the United Party has to create the impression that they are particularly concerned about the depopulation of the rural areas, especially in those areas in which my constituency is situated; because recently they made every possible attempt in every possible field to catch a few votes for the election. Last year, when the Government and the Minister tackled the basic problem causing the depopulation of the rural areas, those hon. members and that hon. member were the people who opposed that legislation and the attempts that were being made to check this depopulation, an example being the hon. member’s statement that he would fight that legislation tooth and nail. Even at that time we predicted that the hon. member would come back to this House to cover up that sin of his to some extent. After all, we know what has been happening in my constituency in recent times. If you consider the lower reaches of the Orange River, where there are 250 farmers in my area who previously had to make a living on holdings of 6 to 7 morgen, which have in the past 20 years been converted into units of 15 to 16 morgen, which is still not an economic unit today, it is clear that the number of farmers necessarily had to decrease by two-thirds. Why then does he want to express the view and give out that the Government is partly responsible for this turn which the depopulation of the rural areas has taken? There have been the droughts which contributed to the depopulation of the rural areas, but the hon.member for Newton Park has, as far as I know, for the past 10 years been opposing the Government’s attempts to prevent it. This is not what he did 10 years ago. Then the position was different. Then he agreed about the problems to which the depopulation of the rural areas is due. I have it with me and I can read it out to him. Then he agreed that the greatest problem in South Africa was that the farmers had uneconomic units, which would in time lead to the depopulation of the rural areas. What did the hon. member say in 1962? Then he proved with figures that the depopulation of the rural areas would under the present circumstances increase each year, and when the Government made an attempt to check this depopulation, he was the first to stand up here and fight that law tooth and nail. They realize that they contributed nothing in the past towards checking this depopulation. Hence this motion, with which they are now again trying to induce people to support the United Party. I think this motion is a motion of self-reproach, a motion emanating from the United Party’s feeling of guilt, particularly in the case of the hon. member for Newton Park. I think they have been arguing all along that if they leave this situation as it is, they can take the opposite side and always go against the Government whenever it presents itself as a problem, in order to try to ensure that those who may be dissatisfied, will always be on their side. What efforts have recently been made by these people who want to prevent the depopulation of the rural areas? They are moving this sort of motion in Parliament merely because they no longer have any support in the rural areas. It is the National Party which has always had close ties with the soil and with the people on it, which will continue to have close ties with the soil and will not forever be striving after the benefits of growth and prosperity, but, as the hon. member said here, for which these things such as the depopulation of the rural areas are matters of serious concern. Our basic problem in connection with the depopulation of the rural areas has always been, as I said, uneconomic units; this inevitably led to a decrease in the number of farmers in our parts. The total area represented by farms smaller than 100 morgen increased from 563,000 morgen in 1927 to 951,000 morgen in 1954. If these are the conditions that have prevailed, how can the number of farmers be expected to stay the same and not decrease? Hundreds of thousands of farmers have found themselves unable to make a living on such uneconomic units. Thank God that in South Africa, owing to its development under the National Party Government, we have been able to guarantee these farmers a living and to absorb them into the industries and the economy of our country.

There have also been other factors contributing to the decline of the farmers. I want to ask whether the United Party will support a proposal that under the circumstances we should write off farmers’ debts completely. Will they support us if we put forward such a proposal? They must tell us now. Prosperity, too, has led to much of the small-farmers’ land being bought up, because these farmers could sell their land at good prices and did not have to get rid of it at low prices. The good prices they obtained enabled them to start a new life. The greatest depopulation in our history, i.e. 22 per cent, took place in the fifties. In these years we enjoyed the greatest prosperity in this country.

The extravagant spirit of the times has also contributed to this and left its mark on the farming community. All the people who used to own these small units in former years, today have motor cars, which they did not have then. Today they have light deliveries, cars, lorries, stereo sets, deep freezes, telephones and electric lights. All these people with their small pieces of land, who previously were unable to afford these things, have fallen prey to the spirit of the times and have also bought these things, while sometimes they could probably least afford them under the circumstances. It should be very clear to the Opposition that in this connection the National Party Government is going to succeed, by means of its policy, in bringing stability to the farmers’ economy in the rural areas. They know that the Government’s policy is such that this will come about. Now they are afraid of lagging behind in future because they opposed these matters which were of importance to the farmers in providing them with an economic subsistence.

What was the United Party’s contribution, during the 15 years they were in power, towards preventing this state of affairs? I am not talking about farmers who had not yet taken up farming at that time. I do not know whether the hon. member who moved the motion today, was farming at that time. Hon. members may ask the hon. member for East London what the situation was. I concede that the current prices of products are not high enough to extricate the farmers from this problem, but let us compare wool prices and other prices in the days of the United Party government with current prices. Now it is the United Party which is so concerned that it wants to move this motion on agriculture. Prior to 1948 our wool prices were approximately 8 cents a pound under the agreement. Hon. members have heard from that hon. member what our wool prices are today. Let us look at meat prices. The price received by the South African farmer when the United Party was in power, was 8¼ cents a pound for super lamb. That was their ideal price! Grade I lamb was 7½ cents a pound; mutton was 7 cents a pound. These were the guaranteed prices. While the depopulation of the rural areas was beginning to increase, these people were not concerned about the prices farmers were receiving for their products at that time. What were the trade prices then? These prices were so high that people could not buy meat. The prices ranged from 50 cents to R1 a pound. Today the general marketing price of meat is approximately 320 per cent higher than the meat prices of that time. If this is not proof that this Government has done its duty towards the farmers, as against the Opposition’s unconcern while they were in power, why then do they want to move a motion today which creates the impression that this Government is not interested in the farmers? No, a party and a government are not judged by their motions and their promises; a party and a government are judged by their deeds over the years. Therefore I ask the United Party to convert their arguments and promises into deeds and thus prove to us that they too want to contribute something positive in the interests of South Africa and its farmers. The pious and popular speeches which are being made cannot save the farmers of South Africa. Realistic ideas and sound judgment alone can place the farmers of South Africa on a sound footing again.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prieska, who has just sat down, has tried to couple this very sensible motion moved by the hon. member for Newton Park with an allegation that we are trying to make politics out of what is a very important subject affecting very large areas of South Africa. I think we must be grateful to the hon. member for Newton Park for having moved this motion and thus focusing the attention, not only of this hon. House, but also of the people outside, on a subject that must enjoy the attention of all those who are connected with the well-being of agriculture in South Africa.

I do not think that we can claim despite all these measures the Government claims it has brought forward, that this question of the “ontvolking” of the platteland is being stopped. It is a matter for serious consideration. It is not only that farmers are leaving their farms; the serious aspect of the matter is that they are leaving the platteland altogether. They are going to the big cities. Some of our very big farmers, some of the people who are the backbone of South Africa, are being forced off the land due to economic difficulties. I believe that steps have to be taken to try and curb this tendency. I should like to try, in the minute or two at my disposal, to persuade the Government to take more active steps and to enlist the services of the hon. the Minister of Planning to conduct more investigation into ways and means of stopping this trend. I acknowledge that some farmers will have to leave their farms. However, what I do not acknowledge is that they have to leave their farms and go to the big cities. I believe that if proper investigation is done, ways and means of decentralizing industry to our small up-country towns will be found where that industry will be placed in a position to give these farmers who are perhaps forced to leave the land, work in the platteland itself. This is important not only for the sake of decentralizing our industry, but it is also important to save the cluttering up of our cities which are already becoming very big. We do not want to repeat the problem of big cities in America. That we want to avoid at all costs. We have space in South Africa. We have fresh air in South Africa, but our big cities are getting polluted. Why must we therefore allow this drift to the big cities to continue if it is not absolutely necessary?

I feel the hon. member for Newton Park has done a service by moving this motion. I believe the debate has been a fruitful one. It has focused attention on a serious problem. At this stage I wish to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.