Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”).

Yesterday evening the hon. member for Odendaalsrus expressed his appreciation to the Minister and the Mealie Board for the way in which they are handling the maize industry in South Africa. He also expressed his appreciation for the new maize price, which makes provision for the fact that the farmer’s price is decreasing by 13 cents, despite the fact that the production costs have increased tremendously, while the consumer price has also increased; i.e. the gap has widened. There is now a difference of 33 cents. Sir, this song of praise was strange, coming as it did from a previous director of Sampi, who wanted to move heaven and earth to have the maize price improved and to destroy the Mealie Board as such. But the hon. member is a maize farmer; he represents the maize farmers, and I shall leave him to the maize farmers of his constituency, leaving them to decide whether he was right when he was a director of Sampi or whether he is now right in being so thankful.

May I ask you a question?

No, I am sorry. I do not have the time. But I want to come to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Yesterday evening, when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City advocated that milk should be supplied to the chain stores at wholesale prices so that they can distribute it in the cheapest way possible, the answer from the hon. the Deputy Minister was that the small shopkeeper must also be taken into account. Sir, that is our difficulty. The hon. the Minister’s duty ought to be to keep the price gap between the producer and the consumer as narrow as possible, but here all kinds of other considerations intrude, for example the shopkeeper must now also be protected.

Do you want to create a monopoly?

The hon. the Minister speaks of creating a monopoly, but the milk distributors have the monopoly. That is what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City advocated, asking whether the Minister was going to allow that monopoly of the milk distributors to be broken, but then the Minister said the shopkeepers must be protected. Does he now think he is the Minister of shopkeepers in South Africa? He is surely the Minister of Agriculture and must surely look after the interests of agriculture. On this side of the House we are continually advocating that the price gap between the producer and the consumer be narrowed.

Let us take meat as an example. Yesterday the hon. the Minister announced a new meat scheme. We hope this is for the best. I have already mentioned in this House how the butcher in South Africa exploits the producer and the consumer. I mentioned the figures indicating that there are 5 800 butchers in South Africa and that on the average they handle only six carcasses per day. As far as the question of meat marketing is concerned, if the Minister would allow decentralized abattoirs to be erected in the rural areas, and the necessary refrigeration trucks are supplied and one can have those meat factories selling the cuts directly to the chain stores, one can obtain a much cheaper distribution. But every butcher in South Africa has invested a tremendous amount of money in machinery, cold storage facilities and the premises he must rent, some of which cost up to R1 500 per month and must be maintained; this must come out of the pocket of the consumer and the fanner. But if one is prepared to have free distribution, knowing full well that every chain store has a refrigeration unit and can obtain those cuts direct from the factory and distribute them directly, we can thereby make the meat much cheaper for the consumer. There will consequently be a much greater consumption of meat with a better price for the farmer.

When the hon. members for Mooi River and Pietermaritzburg City lodged pleas for the milk farmer, the Minister asked whether all products should now be subsidized. I now want to state very clearly here that our answer on this side of the House is that one cannot make a better investment than the subsidizing of food in South Africa. If one had a well-fed population in South Africa, as a result of the subsidizing of food, one would not have the wage demands one does have.

What does Civin of Brakpan say?

Here R41 million per year is being spent on health. If one had a well-fed population, particularly amongst the non-Whites, one could cut out many of those costs. R9,5 million is being spent here on tuberculosis. If one could supply milk to these people at a cheaper price—one could even reintroduce the milk scheme which existed under the United Party Government to give milk to the schools. There is now talk here of surpluses. The Minister spoke of the difficulties the farmers have as a result of the climatic conditions in South Africa. One year one has a surplus and the next year one again does not know what to do with the surpluses. I am saying they must be thankful that those surpluses are there. Those surpluses can be assimilated. They can be assimilated through the schools. They can be distributed amongst the people and thereby the price that must be paid for those products can be greatly reduced. Thereby the people can be kept in a well-fed condition.

I want to mention another aspect of the matter. R24 million per year is being spent on pensions for Coloureds alone. This includes, inter alia, R6 million per year in maintenance and foster-parent allowances. It is quite right that we should care for

those aged. I want to raise a point here which I hope will not be misconstrued. I say that an inquiry must be instituted into the misuse of these pensions, particularly in the rural districts. In the rural districts today we find that young people are living on those old people’s pensions.

Are you now speaking under another Vote?

No, I am speaking under this Vote. I want to point out that by means of these surpluses we can convert that R24 million, or a large portion of it, into food coupons. If that were to be done, we would obtain much better results than we do at present. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to come back to this matter of subsidies. Subsidies are being discussed at great length. The farmer is always being reproached as far as subsidies are concerned. What I am saying is that the subsidy the South African farmer obtains is a meagre one. There are very few subsidies that are paid out directly to the farmer.

What does Civin say?

I have nothing to do with Civin at the moment. [Interjections.] Civin gave those hon. members in Brakpan a hiding they have not forgotten yet.

I want to come back to subsidies. The South African farmer is criticized for the total of R35 million in subsidies on maize products. This is surely not a subsidy to the South African farmer; it is surely a consumer subsidy.

We agree.

Who are you railing at now?

The hon. the Minister asked clearly whether we must subsidize all these products. I am mentioning this because the South African farmer is being blamed each time. Even the hon, the Minister asked me the other day:“What about the subsidies the farmer gets?” However, when the other industries in South Africa are subsidized, that is of no consequence. What is import control and what are import tariffs other than a method by which the industries of South Africa are subsidized? To give you an idea of the problems the South African farmer has to cope with, Sir, I am taking the question of bags as an example. The maize price which the producer receives, had to be decreased, but what about the price of his bags? I think that today he pays up to 52 cents for a bag. What is the position? I do not know what the position is as far as bags are concerned, and that is why I recently asked a question about that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting that the hon. member for King William’s Town has mentioned this story of the subsidies, professing that in reality the farmers obtain a meagre subsidy. In the meantime, of course, they are continually suggesting in the rural areas that higher subsidies should be paid to the farmers. This is completely at odds with what other hon. members opposite have told the urbanites. It is also at odds with what his candidate in Brakpan said about the subsidizing of agriculture, which allegedly takes place at the expense of the consumer.

I should like to refer to an aspect set out by the hon. Opposition on the other side, and to a feeling which emanates from their ranks. The hon. members create the impression that agriculture is a very hazardous industry. I was always under the impression that the mining industry is the most hazardous industry in South Africa’s national economy, but after having listened to all the lamentations emanating from the opposite side, I have come to the conclusion that agriculture is much more hazardous than the mining industry, notwithstanding subsidization by the State. I want to say that the Opposition is doing agriculture no service by making farming a jeremiad of lamentations. We are making the farmer increasingly dependent on the State, and eventually we reach the stage where the farmer, as the backbone of the country, is completely eliminated. One must always adhere to the philosophy that the man who is governed must remain the governor of those who govern. According to the philosophy being expounded here, one finds that the farmer is becoming increasingly subject to State control.

With the present trend of the curtailment of State expenditure, it came as a surprise to me that under the South-West Africa account a larger amount was voted under the “Agricultural Technical Services” Vote than last year. I am glad to see that there is no reduction in the expenditure, but in fact a slight increase. The agricultural community of South-West Africa is grateful to the hon. the Minister and his department for having made this concession. I notice that, in comparison with last year’s expenditure, the amounts being voted this year under various subheads have been increased quite considerably. I want to mention the amount of R2 574 000 for the past fiscal year, as against the amount of R3 257 900 that has been voted for the coming financial year. For veterinary work alone R1 878 000 was voted for the past financial year, while for the coming financial year an amount of R2 094 000 has been voted. As far as I am concerned these larger amounts are proof of the seriousness with which the hon. the Minister and his department regard the combatting of stock diseases in agriculture. What applies to South-West Africa, in this connection, applies also to the Republic, because I notice that the amount voted in respect of agricultural technical services exceeds that of the previous year by almost R7 million. I notice that the amount voted for trigonometric, cadastral and other surveys, in the case of the Republic, is less than that of last year, while that in South-West Africa is the same as that of last year.

This brings me to an aspect which has not been mentioned under this Vote to date. I am referring to the question of aerial photographs made available to the public by the Surveys Division and the security measures involved in this. This also applies to maps in this connection. It is a fundamental requirement for a developing country that accurate maps must be available for various departments and for the national economy. No department can, in actual fact, work without them. I am interested in the mining industry, and I find that this industry, in particular, needs quite a number of these maps for its mineral exploration work. We find that here we have quite a bit of red tape in respect of the security aspects when it comes to these maps and aerial photographs being made available. In my opinion there is quite a bit of unnecessary delay involved in this. It costs quite a bit to produce these maps. What is happening is that the bodies needing these maps and aerial photographs incur the same costs the State incurred in having these maps and photographs made on their own initiative; duplication is therefore taking place. They take their own aerial photographs and produce their own maps and then proceed from there, without any delay, in carrying out their exploration work. There could have been a saving, in respect of those costs, if the State would make those photographs and maps available more quickly. Of course, eventually they are made available. There is no doubt about that. I want to mention another example: In South-West Africa a firm is at present engaged in the erection of electricity transmission lines from Windhoek as part of the Kunene scheme. These lines will form a network over the northern part of South-West Africa. That body is working with inferior maps while the department concerned has better and more accurate maps in its possession. We find that a great deal of trouble has to be taken, in the absence of accurate maps, when it comes to laying out these transmission lines. In my opinion this is really unnecessary. In fact, in this modern century we are living in, accurate aerial photographs of South-West Africa and the whole of Southern Africa, are being taken from the satellites circling the earth. With the aid of these photographs accurate maps are drawn and these maps or aerial photographs are for sale at cartographic institutions in Houston, Texas. If these maps are available elsewhere in the world, these security measures, which can retard the development of the country to a certain extent, are in my opinion quite unnecessary. Procedure apparently dictates that one has to obtain either a permit or permission, and that one must reveal one’s bona fides before one can obtain such a map. When such a map is eventually obtained after three or four months, one can imagine how much manpower is being wasted by the relevant body that must do that work.

In this connection I should also just like to refer to certain contrasting statements sometimes made by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Department of Transport. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing states that the export of cattle in South-West Africa is being restricted by the Department of Transport because inadequate transport facilities are being made available. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, these past two days we have again had to sit and listen to the negative arguments of hon. members opposite. If we think of the United Party we think of a lot of dejected individuals engaged in discrediting agriculture in South Africa. And they are the people who are going to restore confidence in agriculture! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Walmer entitled to tell the hon. member: “You know it is not true”?

No, he said: “It is not true”. The hon. member may proceed.

If one looks at all the arguments the United Party used in the debate about this Vote, and one then looks at Die Afrikaner of 31st March, one sees that the arguments advanced by the United Party to discredit agriculture in South Africa are precisely the same arguments the Hertzog Party is using. I therefore unquestionably want to link up the two parties as blood relations. There is fraternization between these two parties to discredit agriculture in South Africa.

That is not so.

That is so. I challenge the Opposition to compare their Hansard speeches and Die Afrikaner of 31st March. All the arguments are exactly the same. In this country the Opposition is continually engaged in discrediting agriculture. From day to day they are discrediting the farmers of this country, the control boards and also the prices of their products. These people may continue in this vein; we on the National Party side know that here we have Ministers of Agriculture who sometimes have to encourage the farmers under very difficult circumstances. If that party were to come into power, with that hon. shadow Minister as Minister of Agriculture, in this country there would not be a single farmer who would be able to keep up his courage because of the standpoint of that party. Talk centres only on the failures in agriculture, and on nothing else. We on this side also like talking about the successes. I have here, for example, a photograph of a farmer who bought a farm from another farmer who had to sell. It is the farm of a certain Mr. Grobler of Karrookom, Vierfontein. This man is well known to me. He began from the bottom. Indeed, as often happens in South Africa when someone has to sell his farm, in this case it was also a farmer who made a bid for that farm and bought it for R285 000. When he was asked about the payment, he said that he would tremble a little, but that he would nevertheless be able to write out the cheque. We on this side of the House would like to try to hold up such success stories to our fellow farmers and our children who have to succeed us. However, on the opposite side of the House the efforts of farmers are only discredited. The hon. member for Mooi River tried to make a big issue of credit in agriculture. He said that the Land Bank cannot help him in his constituency. I just want to say that in my constituency last year, from 1st January to 31st December, 65 farmers bought land and obtained R1 701 000 from the Land Bank. I am glad of this, and glad of the fact that we have people in agriculture who are not dispirited. I just want to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that if he cannot obtain money for the people in his constituency, he is probably not doing his duty.

While I am speaking about the Land Bank. I just want to mention one aspect. In 1971 25 530 mortgagors, or 91 per cent of those involved with the Land Bank, were insured for R304 million. This is something that has never been mentioned by the United Party. Since the inception of this mortgage insurance scheme. R30 million has already been paid out to the farmers of South Africa. This is not the only insurance the farmers have. Why does the United Party not also speak about these things that are done by this side of the House to help our farmers in respect of the debt they have, a position which is merely exploited all the time by the United Party? These people only want to belittle agriculture at all times. Our Government has always had confidence in the farmer. On this side of the House there are about 50 farmers who represent farming constituencies, more than the total number of Opposition members. This agricultural debate is going to last for nine hours. There is not a single other debate held in this House of Assembly that lasts for nine hours. The one that comes nearest to it is the Prime Minister’s Vote of 7¾ hours, thereafter Bantu Administration of 7½ hours, while the other Votes only take up a maximum of four hours each.

We on this side of the House have full confidence in the farmers of South Africa, and the farmers have full confidence in us. But, Sir, I want to show up the ambiguity of the opposite side of the House in respect of prices and other matters, which I shall come to very shortly. On occasion the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about the re-demarcation of constituencies with respect to their loading and deloading. I should very much like to know from the hon. member for Newton Park if he agrees with them that when they demarcate constituencies in future they are going to do away with the loading of the farming constituencies. They are the people who court the farmer’s vote while adopting the very strong standpoint that their power, not only economic, but also political, is vested in the cities.

Why do you not speak about agriculture?

It is necessary for the farmers of South Africa to take note of this policy of the United Party, i.e. that with a future demarcation, if they were to be in power, this loading and deloading would be removed from the Electoral Acts. But I want to come back to the ambiguity of the United Party. The hon. member for Newton Park said:

Sir, in thinking of this year’s maize price I firstly want to thank our Government very much for this abnormally large amount being given to the maize industry this year. This subsidy cuts both ways: it is beneficial to the consumer, but also beneficial to the farmer.

The hon. member for East London City was a little more approachable. He said :

But the hon. member for Newton Park, the shadow Minister, just wants to increase the prices all the time.

But Oom Jan is a gentleman, he is not a United Party man.

From the back there the hon. member speaks about rising costs, the hon. member who wants to relinquish his Afrikanerhood. The actual price rise this year in the maize industry was 12,9 cents per bag. But our yield increase evidenced a difference of 15,3 cents per bag. This has resulted, this year, in our having a decrease in production costs of 2,4 cents per bag. Is the hon. member for Newton Park also going to include this increased yield per morgen in his calculations when he wants to determine the maize price? No, Sir, these hon. members tell us one thing, but they do another.

I should like to take a slightly closer look at the maize industry. Since 1948 the number of morgen given to the cultivation of maize has doubled, i.e. from 3 million morgen to 6 million morgen. The total yield increased from 18,2 million bags to, it is hoped, 113,2 million bags this year, i.e. six times more than in those days. Our yield per morgen has increased from 5,5 bags per morgen in 1948 to 18,04 bags in 1972. The producer price was R2-20 in 1948, when the United Party was in power. Today the net producer price is 351,5 cents. In those years the consumer price was R2-021; this year it is, calculated on an average basis for white and yellow, about R3-85—almost twice as much. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Heilbron has just made the scandalous assertion that if the hon. member for Mooi River cannot manage to get Land Bank loans for his constituents then he is not doing his job as a member of Parliament. Is that hon. member trying to tell us that the Land Bank uses as its only criterion the efficiency of the member of Parliament? Does the Land Bank not decide who should get loans on the basis of merit? Is this a new type of criterion that is creeping into our public life? He laid great claim to the fact that he is successful. Is this the new criterion—that because he is a successful or a favoured member of Parliament in getting Land Bank loans he is doing his job better than any other hon. member on this side of the House? I think this is absolutely scandalous. I want to warn that hon. member that we shall be watching the position.

You are welcome.

We shall be watching the position. If he is suggesting that politics comes above competence of the Land Bank officials in deciding on the merits of cases, then we shall want to know a lot more about what is going on.

He also made mention of the fact that our two Ministers of Agriculture, the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister, can be tested by their deeds. I want to test them this afternoon. We have had two hon. members from South-West Africa enter this debate. I was surprised to hear that neither of them dealt in any meaningful way with the most important thing that has happened in South-West African agriculture in the past year. The hon. member for Etosha talked about aerial surveys and the hon. member for Karas, in fairness to him, did express his sympathy, even at this late stage, for the farmers of the Hardap irrigation settlement who have suffered through the floods that have taken place there. As we all know these floods occurred in the middle of March. Perhaps we should have heard something from the hon. member who should have been most concerned with what was going on there, namely the hon. member for Marienthal.

What do you know about that?

I know an awful lot. I want to make one thing clear to these hon. members. As long as hon. members on that side of the House do not do their duty in their respective constituencies we shall do it for them. I want to suggest that what we need from that side of the House is rather more than sympathy. What we first want are signs of action and what we also demand are some answers to very material questions connected with the flooding that occurred at Hardap.

Let us turn to these questions first. The particulars I want to give the House were only established through questions in this House. It is common cause that the Hardap irrigation settlement was planned and laid out long after the first warnings had been given officially by the Administration in South-West Africa that this area lay in a flood belt. The first warning was given to the Marienthal Municipality according to answers given to me by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, on the 21st September, 1953, i.e. nearly 19 years ago. A further warning was given on the 23rd July, 1965, nearly seven years ago. Yet the irrigation settlement at Hardap was planned and laid out long after the first warnings had been given. Then, Sir—and here again I am indebted to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs—we know that since 1966, which is six years ago, there has been planning for flood protection works in the area. I refer to a reply given to me by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs a few weeks ago in this House. He then said—

This is six years later—

In 12 months’ time it will be seven years since they first started looking at the threat of flood damage.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member who sounds as though he comes from Lawaaifontein would do best just to stick to the name of his constituency and keep quiet. Leave this to people who know what they are talking about. Now, why has this delay taken place? Where have been the support and protection of these hon. Ministers to the farmers who have been affected by these floods? Where was the protection that they were entitled to expect long before the 15th of March? Not only do we want answers to these questions, we also want to see some action from them.

That will be the day!

I want to ask this hon. Minister whether he is now, even at this late stage, prepared to tackle his colleague, the hon. Minister of Water Affairs, and to ask him whether flood protection works are going to be built in this area to protect this agricultural settlement? These farmers were entitled to this hon. Minister’s protection. I want to know what this hon. Minister is going to do about the damage that has been caused.

Why do you want to know? After all, you have nothing to do with it.

I am entitled to know as a member of this House. You see, Sir, I appreciate that the floods came too late for any provision to be made in the current Estimates, although there is provision for an amount of R500 which is the same as last year, for distress relief and other financial aid to Hardap settlers. But this obviously is going to provide for a very small proportion of the actual damage caused. What we have tended to see on the part of the Administration is the dragging of feet when it comes to seeing what has to be done. I should have expected by now that in an event of this magnitude a statement would have been made to this House about the damage caused and what is going to be done about it. We had it in the case of the floods at East London and Port Elizabeth. What is wrong with South-West Africa; what is wrong with Marienthal? Why should they be neglected in this manner? What we want to know is what assessment is being made of the damage, what is required to be done, how much it is going to cost and when we are going to see the rehabilitation of the farmers. It is quite clear to those who know the area that the main damage that has been caused has been to low-lying plots and areas that have been levelled for subdivision. Most important, Sir, is that there has been a grave loss of topsoil, especially in the sandy areas where the soil has been classified as A1 or A2, the best type of soil available, and it seems at this early stage, in the absence of any explanation by the hon. the Minister or the Deputy Minister, that the damage might be quite serious indeed. [Time expired.]

Sir, I do not want to respond to what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. In the constituencies he has a habit of poking his nose in everywhere and pecking here and pecking there. I remember that he was once in De Aar and that he subsequently came along here with a story that had not been fully verified.

What do you know about that disaster?

I am not speaking about those matters; I am speaking about things I know of. What I can in fact tell the hon. member is that the Land Bank grants its loans on merit. In many cases the M.P.s help to clear away certain misunderstandings, and therefore we can say that we do our work in our constituencies by taking our constituents to the Land Bank when there are sometimes aspects that are not clear.

Sir, last year it was not difficult to know what the United Party men were going to speak about here. We knew they were going to come along with cattle quotas. The previous year we also knew what they were going to come along with, because then the farmers were having a difficult time of it and there was drought, and they consequently exploited the drought. This year the world around us looks lovely; there is not such a great demand for cattle quotas, and the United Party men therefore did not know what they should come and say here. Their display in this agricultural debate was nearly the poorest I have ever witnessed in an agricultural debate in this House. This makes me think that they are following the advice their newspapers gave them about staying away from the rural areas because, after all, there they would not obtain any votes.

Sir, I should like to speak about the very important announcement the hon. the Minister of Agriculture made yesterday in connection with abattoirs. Here we have frequently advocated greater flexibility in our meat scheme. I know that the hon. the Minister has always been sympathetic to greater flexibility in the meat scheme. Yesterday he said so himself in the course of his speech, when he said, inter alia—

Yesterday he gave us great hope for the future of meat marketing in South Africa. He said, inter alia—

For how long has he now been Minister?

There have always been commissions of inquiry, after all, who have investigated that aspect, and we have always been working along these lines. The hon. member knows very well what the upshot was. It was as a result of the intercession of this Minister that we have today come so far that we can be proud of the scheme they worked out for us and which gives us new hope when it comes to the slaughtering of our cattle and our small stock. Sir, just to give you an idea of how our scheme did not previously fit in with modern marketing methods and modern methods of distribution, I want to quote you a passage from the report of a deputation which instituted investigations overseas (translation)—

I want to state that we in South Africa could not apply these marketing methods as a result of the inflexibility of our present system. In this debate we have also heard a great deal—and I shall be coming to that in just a moment—about the wide gap that exists between the producer and the consumer, as if it is the middle man who takes all the profit. This is not the case at all. In the Meat Board’s regulations it is provided that every butcher must have a blockman. Surely the idea is that there should be depots that can cut meat and distribute it to the various butchers. You know yourself that blockmen are very expensive to keep in one’s employ today. I know of a company which recently brought 20 new blockmen into the country. They specially went to select those men in England and Scotland, but the blockmen had hardly landed here when they were given such big offers that the company has only six of them left today. And yet we cannot see why this system of depots, where the meat is processed by blockmen and qualified people under hygienic conditions, cannot be extended to butchers. This is only one single factor I can mention why we welcome the fact that the meat scheme will now be more flexible. In addition, as far as making meat more freely available is concerned, one is dumbfounded by the reason why meat must only be sold at certain hours, and why meat cannot be more freely available. I want to express the thanks of this side of the House to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for having taken this big step of eventually placing our meat industry on a much sounder footing than previously. Then I come to this other point that was made by the hon. member for East London North, who spoke of R6 per sheep, and the hon. member for King William’s Town who spoke of the tremendous gap between the producer and the consumer. Here I have an analysis of super lamb based on the average price which prevailed in Johannesburg in February of this year. The weight of this super lamb was 17,273 kg and after it was slaughtered it realised R12-50. The hon. member for East London North says we obtain R6 or R7 per sheep.

I was not speaking of super lambs.

I can also give the price of average beef. I also want to sound a warning that we must not continually try to play the producer off against the consumer. That is what the hon. member for King William’s Town has just done by speaking of the tremendously wide gap between the producer and the consumer. This same lamb is retailed at R17-50. Only 28 per cent is added in respect of the sale price.

What is the price of a super Nationalist?

You cannot buy them. Here it is 8 per cent for wholesale and 20 per cent for retail. I now ask any of the hon. members opposite if this is too large a gross percentage profit? The hon. member for King William’s Town must now reply, indicating whether the gross percentage profit is too great. Here I have it in black and white, and I shall give you a copy of it, then you will see. Therefore please stop spreading these stories about the consumer being exploited.

You will be replied to.

I can give you the same figures for a grade I beef carcass. The hindquarter of a grade I beef carcass weighed 48 kg. It cost R37-78. Twenty-eight per cent was again added and it was retailed at R52. But now we sometimes make the mistake, as some members on this side of the House have also frequently indicated, of taking those expensive cuts which are sold at 136 cents per kg and then thinking that all the meat from that hindquarter is worth 136 cents, though it decreases to as much as 89 cents per kg. 10,1 per cent of the hindquarter is bone, 5,4 per cent of the hindquarter is fat. In view of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture’s announcement yesterday, we are looking forward to a new meat scheme and a new dispensation in the meat industry which will benefit the producer and the consumer, and we thank him very much for that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss very briefly a branch of the agricultural industry, viz., tobacco farming. I want to refer specifically to the tobacco-seed cultivating station at the Hartebeespoort Dam, situated in the Brits constituency.

Where is that?

It is not in Oudtshoorn. The production of Virginia tobacco-seed goes back to the time of the Transvaal Government in the years 1906 and 1907. Shortly after Union this important function was taken over by the experimental farm at Rustenburg. Since 1934 this essential function of the cultivation of tobacco-seed was undertaken by the Hartebeespoort experimental farm, situated in the district of Brits, in order that the Rustenburg experimental farm could concentrate on research work. Since 1947 the tobacco station at Brits has been the only producer of Virginia tobacco-seed in the Republic. It was quite disturbing to learn that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services intends closing down the Hartebeespoort tobacco station in Brits. Fortunately I have been given the assurance by both the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture that they have not reached a final decision yet.

May I ask a question?

If you want to know what the result in Oudtshoorn is, I shall reply to you. That is the only question I shall reply to.

Fortunately I have been able to discuss this matter at length in private with both the Minister and Dr. Verbeek, whose sympathy and objectivity towards this function which the department performed, is of a special nature.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to reply to a question.

Order! The hon. member wants to raise a point of order.

If the hon. member is not reading his speech but if he is quoting something else, will he tell us from what he is reading?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order : I am quoting.

Now I want to make this urgent request to the Minister and I am advancing a plea and I also know that he will, in the interests of the tobacco industry, acquiesce. In the first place, I want to ask that the Minister will agree to have an interview with a delegation from the tobacco group. This delegation consists of the hon. members for Rustenburg, Brits, Nelspruit, Marico, Wakkerstroom, Parys, Waterberg, Potgietersrus, Humansdorp, Malmesbury and Oudtshoorn together with Sentabak, which is the central body of all the co-operative societies in the Republic of South Africa. I just want to mention that the tobacco group had a meeting this morning and after due consideration of the matter this collective action was decided upon. My services are being used in this connection because, unfortunately, I spoke about ostrich farming and this the United Party did not like.

In the second place, I ask that the Minister should decide to maintain this specialized service there at all costs. In the third place, we submit that the ideal experimental station, the Hartebeespoort experimental farm, should be retained. I should like to emphasize the most important reasons for the continuance of this specialized departmental function which has been carried out so effectively and with so much devotion by our officials and which, to my mind, undoubtedly forms the indispensible and sound basis for a sound tobacco cultivating industry. In the first place, I want to mention the extreme suitability of the seed station in question for the cultivation of tobacco-seed. In this connection I want to mention the following factors: In the first place, the size of the experimental farm. On approximately 20 of the 60 morgen fine, fertile and fully scheduled irrigation land approximately 100 000 ounces of Virginia tobacco-seed is produced annually, all of which is snapped up by tobacco producers.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

What is wrong? Mr. Chairman, this is deliberate obstruction on the part of the hon. member; I refuse to answer him.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to say it is deliberate, and therefore he has to withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. Chief Whip allowed to continue to quote the whole of his speech?

Order! That is not a point of order.

The Hartebeespoort tobacco station has the ideal size for the essential crop rotation in order to cultivate the seed effectively. Furthermore, in addition to the experimental farm being suitable on account of its geographic situation, it is also isolated, as the United Party is at present. It extends over a narrow region along the Crocodile River which makes the isolation of a large number of varieties in a fairly small area possible. This isolation has various advantages, and I want to mention them. The seed-buds do not have to be covered on the land because cross-pollination between varieties is prevented as a result of the isolation. The production of the bare seed-buds is twice that of the covered seed-buds. In the second place, only a small portion of the farm adjoins the road and it is situated away from the critical eyes of producers who would like to cultivate seed themselves, often from hybridized varieties which are unacceptable to the industry. In the third place, I mention the fact that the absence of tobacco and tobacco cultivating material in the area promotes the production of true-to-type seed which is free of disease organisms such as brown rust and anthracnosis which may spread epidemics in concentrated production areas. [Interjections.] These are diseases, and I am not talking about the United Party, which is the major epidemic in South Africa.

Tell us its name?

Please give me a chance because I am dealing with something in the interests of the tobacco industry. If the hon. member wants to fight over politics, I shall come back to it in a moment.

The soil is mainly alluvial with a very sound growth potential and drainage. This ensures higher production per morgen and, what is more important, a stable production from year to year. Hon. members know that we have had excessive rains in the past year, torrential rains, but that area is never saturated because one finds a dark red loamy soil there, suitable for the cultivation of that seed.

In regard to the availability of water, I may say that the farm gets scheduled water from the Hartebeespoort Dam which is brought to the farm by way of an old furrow. As far as the latter is concerned, it can be said that it has been proved in the past that this is the most reliable source of water below the Hartebeespoort scheme. Furthermore, it is well known that the Hartebeespoort Dam is the most reliable irrigation dam in the whole of the Western Transvaal.

I now want to deal with the equipment on that important farm. The farm is specially equipped for the cultivation of tobacco with the necessary water pipes, irrigation canals, storage dams, sheds, seed

cleaning machines, seed-sheds, etc. Furthermore, it is also a very important production area. Brits is the most important kilndrying area in the country and the cultivation of seed in the production area does not only inspire confidence but also creates opportunities for the carrying out of cultivar tests which, otherwise, would have to be replaced by demonstration experiments. What is more, the area is not subject to hail damage, because it is not situated in the hail belt.

Hon. members continually interrupted me while I was dealing with a scientific aspect, an aspect which is absolutely indispensible to a sound tobacco industry. Do hon. members know what the tobacco industry means to South Africa? The industry plays a tremendous part in our national economy. This is the goose that lays the golden eggs, because indirect taxation and excise duty from 1960 to 1970 amounted to R85 million of the country’s Budget. During the financial year 1970-’71 it amounted to R19 million. And during the financial year 1971-’72 it amounted to R111 million. It is estimated that it will contribute R112 million towards the Budget during the coming financial year. Do hon. members know why the hon. members on that side of the House interrupt me?

What is John Scott of the Cape Times going to say about that speech?

There were tobacco farmers in the Oudtshoorn district as long ago as 1920 when Langenhoven took the Oudtshoorn seat for the first time. I also want to tell hon. members what other date they can also remember. Do hon. members know when the seed station was opened at Brits for the first time? It was opened in 1947 when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition lost the by-election in Hottentots Holland. But hon. members are interrupting me. Let them interrupt me once more!

You are making a mockery of Parliament.

I shall be glad if the hon. member would keep quiet now. I shall tell him why he should keep quiet. I am going to ask the Deputy Minister to ensure that this seed station will remain there for all generations to come, to all eternity. If he does not see his way clear to do that, then keep it there until the year 6666. If he does not see his way clear to do that, I want to appeal to him to keep it there until the year 4848. But for heavens sake, do not keep it there until 1808 because that is something of the past, just as the United Party will be when posterity thinks of them.

I do not want to reply to the Chief Whip, because you, Sir, heard that he said he was quoting from something. A person who quotes his whole speech …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to …

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Order ! I want to say to the hon. member that he is not allowed to cast a reflection on the Chair by suggesting that I do not know whether or not an hon. member is reading off his speech. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

What is the point of order?

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order and a very strong point, too.

Then make the point if it is a point of order.

The hon. member suggests that I was reading off my speech, while he is sucking out the brains of other people …

Order ! That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Sea Point may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Chief Whip is very fortunate, because I shall not suck out his brains, because I do not suck on dummies.

But then you would become a Nationalist.

I do not suck on dummies, because one gets nothing from them apart from wind.

I do not think I need to waste any more time on the hon. the Chief Whip. I should like to come back to the hon. member for Vryburg. I believe that any industry, farming industry or whatever industry it may be, will flourish provided the people have confidence in that industry. I was grateful that that hon. member, who might have made a contribution, spoke about the marketing of meat. However, he will not take it amiss of me when I say that it put me very much in mind of the hand of Esau, but the voice of Jacob. It was the voice of a person who represents farmers, but I had a strong feeling that I detected the hand of Assocor in regard to the abattoirs. I want to leave it at that.

It is not in your interests.

It is in my interests to see that other people are happy, and it does not worry me if the hon. member believes that there is nothing wrong with the meat prices, if he tells the housewife that the farmer receives this and the housewife pays that and that the people are not to be blamed for it but that it is the Government which is to be blamed.

I now want to come to another point. At this stage I must object to what another hon. member said previously about the hon. member for Kensington. He took the hon. member for Kensington to task for looking after the interests of people who do not live in the Kensington constituency. The hon. member for Kensington was, of course, quite right in doing so. A member of Parliament is elected in a certain constituency to help to represent the whole of South Africa. This he must naturally do; it is his duty. That is why I say that the hon. member for Kensington need not be ashamed at all of raising the interests of people in this House although those people do not live in his constituency.

But I want to come to those people who live in the constituency of the hon. the Minister, the constituency I also live in, and to those people who live in the whole of the Western Province. I said nobody could have any confidence if he was not sure that the future of an industry was safe. I now want to talk man to man to the hon. the Minister. Would he allow his sons to continue their farming activities if he is not sure that they will have the labour on their farms in future? The hon. the Minister should look at me. There are no workers in the gallery; his sons are not there either. I say I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he would be happy to allow his sons to farm and invest money in the land if he knows that the future of labour is not safe?

All three of them are farming at the moment.

Yes, all three of them are farming at the moment because their father made them prosperous when the United Party was governing the country. At that time we did not have an Uys as Minister of Agriculture. But this is not the point. I want a reply from the hon. the Minister. If he tells me that he is quite satisfied with the labour position in the Western Province, it would be impossible for me to discuss this matter any further. But I now say that the Minister will not have the courage to rise in this House and say that the position of the farmer in the Western Province is safe as far as labour is concerned. This he will not do. He will not even nod his head to indicate that he is, in fact, satisfied. What is the position? A previous Minister appointed committees to ascertain what the effect of the Bantu policy of this Government would be on the Western Province. Those committees have never submitted a report, nor will they ever submit one. One would have thought that this matter should be discussed under the Labour Vote, but the whole business is in such a confusion that one can discuss anything, except labour, under Labour. It has to be discussed under this Vote now. This is the only Vote under which this can be legally discussed. I now ask the hon. the Minister please to make representations to the Government on behalf of the farmers in the Western Province. As a result of my patriotism there are … [Interjections.]

Oh, no!

Mr. Chairman, those hon. members do not care what they destroy, as long as they are able to get political votes. I want to ask that hon. member, who made the interjection, what he knows about the composition of farms and the difficulties in which we find ourselves.

More than you know about it.

If the hon. member does know anything about it, will he tell us what he knows and will he also allow me to say what I know? May I say what I know? Will the hon. the Minister say what he knows? Hon. members should not act like irresponsible children. The Government will not say it and I shall not say it either. But I want to say that all of us know—this is what was published—that this Government are going to close down out-stations in the near future. We know why.

Why?

Because in many countries there exists legislation, and because this Government has also approved legislation, which lays down that produce may not be imported from countries in which produce is produced by prisons.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, not at the moment. But these are the facts of the matter. The Government is already taking steps in this regard. I do not blame the Government. There are persons who want to discriminate against us because we use prison labour. Incidentally, I do not use prison labour. But it is not the worst of evils to utilize the labour of those people, but this is unfortunately the position. Before the end of next year 9 000 labourers will be withdrawn from the Western Province.

Why do you stir up feelings?

Who is stirring up what feelings? We have a lot of parrots here which can do nothing else but make a noise; they do not have any interest in South Africa and they do not care to destroy. We should not have such language, particularly not from Ovamboland.

He is from Worcester.

The hon. member for Worcester is not a farmer and it therefore makes no difference. We have to find 9 000 new labourers in the Western Province. At present we are able to get them from the homelands for one year under the contract system. When they arrive here they can neither read nor write; neither do they know one’s farm; they do not know one’s language and neither does one know their language. It would be interesting to know how many vines have been destroyed in the pruning process by people who are not trained and who have no knowledge of the work. I wonder how many vines have been destroyed.

How many farmers do you have in Sea Point?

There are other subjects I can discuss as far as that hon. member is concerned. I do not want to hit back at that hon. member who is getting under my skin now. He knows that I will hit back hard. I want to repeat, that we find ourselves in the position that we will have to look for labour. The hon. the Minister knows it. We cannot continue the way we are carrying on at the moment. The Minister does not take any notice and I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has the courage to say something. Is he in favour of the system as it is at present? Is he also reading a document or is he not? No, he is just laughing. Surely, we cannot continue in this vein. Are we afraid to face the facts? Surely the Minister is “our” Minister of Agriculture. Is he ashamed or afraid to plead for the interests of the farmer? The word “Minister” means servant, and the Minister is the servant of the farmers. However, he does not want to serve us. He does not want to help us; what do we do with him? We cannot continue as we are carrying on at the moment.

Let me deal with a second point. In regard to Coloured farm labourers, I have pleaded on numerous occasions in this House for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to arrange short courses in order to improve our Coloured labour and to improve their knowledge of the work. However, this is not done. Why is this not done? It is not because this Minister does not appreciate how essential it is. He has been forbidden to do it because everyone is placed in a small compartment, and the Department of Coloured Affairs must take care of the Coloureds on the farms, while the Department of Coloured Affairs knows nothing about the whole affair. This is the position throughout. The Minister agrees with me that those people have to be trained. Let him or the Deputy Minister now tell me that they do not agree with me. Those labourers have to be trained by technical staff who know their job.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, you may not. There is a second point I want to mention in order to show in which way the farmer is being discriminated against. The industrialist gets his employees here in the city where they live in sub-economic houses. The State advances money to the employees of the industrialist or to the local authority at ¾ per cent interest in order to provide them with housing. However, when it comes to the poor farmer who gets a loan from the State, he has to pay 5 per cent interest in order to provide housing for his farm labourers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point is quite worried about labour conditions in the Western Cape. The hon. member, in his speech, made a certain number of statements. I just want to tell the hon. member that I know grape farmers who do not use Coloureds to prune their vines. Those farmers will be upset when the hon. member tells them that those Bantu destroyed their vineyards through pruning. They do not supervise their farming activities in such a poor way. There are many farmers who never employ Coloureds to prune their vines. However, there is some merit in the speech of the hon. member, and that is that we will have to make adjustments as far as labour is concerned. However, the hon. member should not be so pessimistic as to say that the Minister of Agriculture has no sympathy and no interest in regard to the labour problems in the particular area in which the hon. member farms. What I am worried about in regard to labour in agriculture, is that we are going to reach the stage where we shall be unable to accommodate all the labour. The hon. member should not make the mistake by saying that there is no sympathy for these particular farmers who are not allowed to make use of forced labour any longer. The matter is being approached very sympathetically, but it is not for us to make all kinds of announcements across the floor of the House. This is a delicate matter which should be handled with great care. The hon. member mentioned training. We have farmers here who have never had a trained Bantu or Coloured, but after he has worked for them for three or four years that labourer is highly trained. The farmer trains the labourer himself.

May I ask the Deputy Minister a question?

I promised the Whip I would speak for only seven minutes. The Minister will reply to the questions of the hon. member. I want to refer to the hon. member for King William’s Town. He shouted, raved and said that we wanted to create a monopoly among the distributors of milk. He asked: Why not allow the distributors and the retailers of milk to go under and give the supermarkets the opportunity? That is what it amounted to. I told the hon. member yesterday what would happen if one would allow the supermarket to use milk as a loss leader. I am in favour of inexpensive foodstuffs for the public. Just take those areas where the housewife says that she wants the pint of milk delivered at her house.

She will still be able to pay for it.

She cannot go to the supermarket. Not all of us is in a position to storm into a supermarket at 6 o’clock in the morning. One must remember that the Milk Board, the Dairy Board and all these bodies are the representatives of the farmer and all hon. members have done so far, is to speak disparagingly of them. Hon. members say: Let us divide into zones. Let Sea Point be served by one distributor. Why must four distributors be allowed to enter one block of flats—the one distributor delivers at a particular block of flats while the other distributor delivers at a different block of flats, as is the case with the delivery of fuel today. These are practical methods which are being applied for the very purpose of cutting costs and not to increase costs. I can argue with hon. members for half an hour about this matter, and they will come back to me and agree with me. If we do what they ask, the ultimate result will be that the supermarkets with their bargaining powers will be able to cut the price of milk to such an extent that the retailers, against whom the hon. member now has it and who provides an excellent service, will go under and then we will have to pay quite a different price for our milk because it will then be a monopoly. But now the hon. member comes along and raises the cry that it is the attitude of the Government to make foodstuffs as expensive as it possibly can.

The hon. member said that we should subsidize all foodstuffs without exception and that feeding schemes should be encouraged. Two months ago there was a shortage of fresh milk in the Witwatersrand area. Suppose we introduce all these feeding schemes the hon. member propagates and suppose we introduce the subsidies and what-have-you in order to combat tuberculosis and other diseases and we suddenly find that we have a shortage of these foodstuffs. These schemes do not work the way the hon. member wants them to work. What the hon. member was really trying to do was to catch votes, to raise a popular slogan and to raise the cry in this House. “Make foodstuffs cheap to the public”. This is the major aim of this Government; but it is not child’s play to implement this. It is not an easy thing for anybody to be able to say that he has succeeded in reducing the price of foodstuffs while, on the other hand, costs do not go up at the same time.

I just want to discuss something with the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet asked the hon. member quite clearly to explain the statements made by his candidates in the cities, who are now in the field, viz. that we have introduced the stock withdrawal scheme solely for the purpose of taking R100 million out of the pockets of the taxpayers to subsidize the farmer in order to make mutton more expensive. The hon. member, as the leader of the agricultural group of the United Party, will have to take up a standpoint in regard to this matter. If he wants to be politically honest he will have to say that he repudiates that candidate who goes from house to house and tells lies to the people. But we are not dumb either. Remember, we also talk in that constituency.

The hon. member for Etosha made out a good case for the surveys in his area. These we are carrying out. We shall reply in writing to the representations made by members on our side. I am thinking specifically of the speech made by the member for Heilbron, who dealt with the positive side of the matter. It is wonderful to hear for a change that there is a farmer in a constituency who has made a success. There are quite a number of them in his constituency. This he does not do for himself or for the National Party. He does it for his children. The hon. member for Smithfield said we should encourage agricultural extension and persuade students to take an interest in agriculture. If one speaks as the hon. member for Vryburg did, one will find people who have an interest in agriculture.

The hon. member for Brits advanced a plea in regard to tobacco seed. I can just tell the hon. member that the attitude of the Department is that the industry should undertake its commercial seed production itself through Sentabak or the Tobacco Council. We are having discussions at the moment. The Department also stated that it was not the intention at all to close down the Hartebeestpoort Dam station. I want to put the hon. member’s mind at ease: If it is justified and if there is a need for it —because we are considering whether the industry could not be taken over gradually —we will see to it, until the year 6666, that it will continue to exist there. As in the past, the Department of Agriculture will continue to show an interest. I can tell the hon. member that, on account of the representations he made, we will not close down the Hartebeestpoort Dam research station. This is characteristic of our side, Sir. People ask for something for their members and they get it. They are not gossiping and so forth.

You do your share of gossiping too.

Sir, I may perhaps indulge, now and then, in a little …

Gossiping.

… but I do not tell lies.

I now come to the hon. member for Carletonville. As he did not have a chance to speak, he asked me just to mention that there is a certain firm which is misleading people and gets thousands of rands on account of its misrepresenting rabbit farming. I want to tell the hon. member that the Department will go into this matter and that we shall take the necessary steps. I had a look at these documents when he gave them to me a little while ago, and it is shocking to see how people are being misled on account of an advertisement. An enormous amount of research has already been done in this regard and we do not want people to invest the little money they have in an inadequate and declining rabbit industry while money can, in fact, be made out of rabbit farming if it is done in the proper way.

Mr. Chairman, if hon. members on the opposite side who spoke this afternoon had said something worthwhile replying to, I should like to have followed up on what they said, but my time is limited and they will pardon me if I do not continue in that vein. It remains a strange phenomenon to me that there should be so many people who complain about farmers and who complain on behalf of the farmers, while the farmers hold their peace. I find it a strange phenomenon because the motives are not completely obscure, but are sometimes very conspicuous. I should now like to say something in favour of our farmers in South Africa. The complainers about them and the complainers, so-called, on their behalf, do not take into consideration the fact that our farmers in South Africa are people of particular mettle. They are people who are not easily led by the nose, people who do not allow themselves to be taken in. They are people who think for themselves. Recently we again had conclusive proof of this in Oudtshoorn; they are people who think for themselves.

To my mind the South African farmer is a wonderful person in another respect. Despite all the jeremiads, despite all the plagues and setbacks they have had to cope with, despite the fact that a gloomy picture of agriculture in South Africa is constantly being painted for us, and despite the fact that we hear of so many different figures in respect of the number of farmers, I want to say that there are still more than 90 000 of them. There are not many of them; as a matter of fact, they are impressively few. This number of farmers in South Africa are still feeding the entire population of South Africa, and they shall continue to do so in future. The longer the National Party stays in power the longer they will continue to do so. What is more, this group of farmers in South Africa do not only meet the immediate requirements in respect of foodstuffs. If we were to be honest today, and if we were to make an analysis, we would see that there is no single group representing the national economy of South Africa upon whom so many people are directly and indirectly dependent as upon these 90 000 farmers. Just think of all the non-Whites making a living on every farm, directly out of the pocket of that particular farmer. Just think of all those, for example the industries, which are responsible for supplying the farmer with all his requirements. We can continue in this way to mention numerous examples. I sometimes think, precisely in regard to that aspect, that the farmer is too heavily burdened.

Sir, I should like to mention a last point here which is of special importance to me. As you know, we have trade unions and similar bodies in respect of most industries, bodies with bargaining rights, mostly with the object of seeing whether they cannot obtain higher wages for the members of their unions. We have organized agriculture in South Africa; we know what the work of organized agriculture is; it is no longer news today, but I have already asked myself whether it is not time organized agriculture in our country also considered whether it should not obtain some kind of bargaining right, not in order to send the prices of agricultural produce soaring, but in order to bring down the prices of agricultural requirements and implements. Sir, the farmer needs implements, fertilizer pesticides, etc., and the stock farmers require other commodities. There are so many organizations producing or supplying these things. Once they have finished designing and producing these things and the time comes to market them, they send any number of people scurrying all over the countryside in order to boost those commodities. There is tremendous competition among those organizations, but it does not contribute to forcing down the prices of commodities such as agricultural implements; the prices are more likely to rise because the farmer ultimately has to pay the salary of those people doing the propaganda work as well. For this reason I honestly think it is time we gave thought to this matter. From time to time the farmer simply hears that the price of this or that commodity has gone up, and he can do nothing about it. Recently, for example, the price of fertilizer went up again, but the farmer has no say in the matter. In the region of every co-operative one finds numerous representatives driving around offering the farmers the fertilizer manufactured by their companies. Sir, to my mind this is an unnecessary expense; here is something which is really not consistent with what we should like to see. Another formula should be found so that this continual rise in the prices of farming or agricultural requirements may be halted. The farmer himself can do nothing whatsoever about it; he can only watch dolefully how prices are constantly rising.

Mr. Chairman, the speech that we have just heard from the hon. member for De Aar could quite easily have been made by an hon. member from this side of the House. Indeed, I agree with a great many of his sentiments, particularly when he was complaining about the ever-increasing cost of production and the heavy tax burden which many farmers have to bear.

Sir, I want to deal with certain statements made by the hon. the Minister …

Where is the Minister; he is not here?

… when he replied to a speech I made some days ago on the question of the Dukuduku land. The hon. the Minister on that occasion made a number of accusations against me, which I am becoming used to, but a number of them must be dealt with. He said on a number of occasions that I had denied receiving the letter sent to me by the Secretary of the department, and he castigated me for the apparent delay in raising this matter in this House. If the hon. the Minister will look at his own Hansard, he will find that at no time did I deny receiving that letter. I merely corrected him when he said that it was a letter from the Minister, because it was not. The other point, the question of the apparent delay in raising this matter, I think I should deal with at rather greater length. This matter was first raised by me in 1966 by means of correspondence with the then Minister. That was two years after this lease was entered into, the lease having been entered into in 1964. At that time the lease and the preparation of the land in terms of that lease had the appearance of normality because it was a lease to clear land and to plant sisal, and in 1966 that was apparently being done. Sir, it is what took place after that that has caused this matter to have interest not only in my mind, but in the minds of many people who know the facts. But what has taken place since then? Not only has a new owner come in to take the place of the person to whom the land was originally leased, but since that time one has seen the gradual abandonment of the production of sisal, which was the very reason for the granting of the lease. In addition to the evidence, which was there for all to see, of the gradual abandonment of the production of sisal, there have been rumours that this land is to be converted to sugar production. Coupled with that, we have the fact that the Minister of Economic Affairs has recently granted additional quotas, against the interest of the industry, and these things brought matters to a head a year ago. It was as a result of that that I placed on the Order Paper a year ago the questions to which I shall refer a little later. Having placed a full list of questions on the Order Paper, what happened? Absolutely nothing at all in this regard. The position there continued to deteriorate. In September last year I pointed out the situation from an aircraft to the hon. the Deputy Minister, where he himself, together with his officials, saw what I now allege, and that is that at that time their was an abandonment of sisal production to the extent that the sisal fields were returning to grass and had thorn trees growing in them higher than the sisal plants themselves. Sir, this was seen by everybody who was in the aircraft at the time, including the hon. the Deputy Minister. But still nothing happened after that; and then what does one find? Virtually every term of this lease, not only its advertised terms but its amended terms, are broken; they are not adhered to by the lessee concerned. People are incensed because they know about this, and, Sir, it is apparently regarded as remarkable that after all this I should raise this matter in this House as I did some weeks ago. Let us look at the two speeches which have been made by the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister in an attempt to justify this situation. The hon. the Deputy Minister said to this House that 12 years ago when sisal was a completely unknown product which had to be boosted, this lease was granted. Sisal has been grown and processed in Northern Zululand for the last 50 years. Ever since I have been on this planet, sisal has been produced there. There have been decorticating plants and the stuff has been produced as a fibre, but we are now told that 12 years ago this was a completely unknown product in this country.

The modern processing.

First South African Cordage, Sir, had a decorticating plant at Mkuzi 20 or 30 miles from this very place that I have been complaining about for years and years.

But the processing was not a success.

It is a subsidiary of Ropes and Mattings, which is one of the biggest industrial companies in Natal. We are told that this person Who got the lease had all the know-how, the capital and the machinery required for a successful enterprise, and yet not a paragraph later we are told that he had to be allowed to grow sugar from the commencement of his lease because he could not get his capital and machinery out of Tanganyika and he was in financial difficulties. Finally, what are we told by the hon. the Deputy Minister and by the Minister himself? The hon. the Deputy Minister said there was no future for the sisal industry and the Minister said there was a tremendous drop in the price of sisal, so much so that the sisal industry finds itself in great difficulties today. And yet what does the hon. gentleman tell us in the next breath? That some 1 200 acres of this land are at this moment being cleared and planted with sisal. What on earth for? Both Ministers tell us what we all know, namely that there is no future for the sisal industry and that the bottom has dropped out of the market, and yet in the next breath we are told that this man is to go ahead, apparently for a successful financial venture, to plant another 1 200 acres of sisal.

Now, Sir, this is absolute nonsense. In ten years the hon. the Minister agrees that this man has planted a mere 400 acres out of 5 600 acres of land that he has got. Are we to expect that this lease now is apparently to go on for the purpose of producing sisal over an additional 5 000 acres? What then is going to happen? Nobody will believe that this man is to go ahead to plant sisal when there is no future in it, as both Ministers have admitted. That is why there is such concern at the present time, and that is why I raise this matter, because there is a grave suspicion that the purpose for which this land is to be used is to be changed. I say that if there is to be a material change in the purpose for which this land is to be used, then it has to be readvertised for that purpose. Will the Minister give this House the assurance that no additional sugar will be grown on this land without readvertisement? I hope he will give us the assurance, both on his own behalf and on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who issues sugar quotas.

He has not got an extra quota.

He cannot grow cane without a quota. The hon. the Minister surely knows that. He has got a quota for the 240 acres and that was granted in 1964, at the time the lease was first entered into.

But he does not have an extra quota.

No, but he has a quota for which this land was never advertised. Had the public known at the time when this land was advertised that a sugar quota would be made available for it, there would have been dozens of additional applicants waiting in the queue for this land. [Interjections.] As I have said, this lease was signed in July, 1964, on the Minister’s own statement, and it was backdated to February, 1964. In the first half of 1964, on the Minister’s own statement, it was known that this man could not get his capital out of Tanganyika and could not get out his heavy machinery, and those are two of the principle reasons why he was granted the lease in the first place, because, we are told, he had the capital and the equipment, and the cash necessary for this enterprise. So, knowing that the two main reasons for which he was selected for this lease no longer applied, this lease was proceeded with at a time when it was known that the sisal industry was already going into a decline. The hon. the Minister went further and said that investigations that were conducted towards the end of last year and the beginning of this year proved that the lessee had planted 24 ha of bananas. Sir, why was that investigation undertaken? It was because I pointed out to the hon. the Deputy Minister what was going on on this property, when I flew over it with him in September last year. But here one is castigated for raising this matter at the time when one did so.

Let me come to the final point in the hon. the Minister’s statement in this House. He said that this land was let initially, for 20 years, at a rental of R3 000 per annum. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Zululand will forgive me if I do not follow up on what he said in his speech, for if I were to do that I would not find the time for the topic I should like to deal with. Actually, I just want in passing to refer to a short speech made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Kensington when he said for the benefit of hon. members who represent South-West Africa here that if we do not do our duty in respect of South-West Africa the Opposition will. He then referred to the flood disaster in Mariental. That flood occurred on 16/17 March. The hon. members of the Opposition had ample opportunity of discussing it. They had such an opportunity in the Budget debate and also afterwards in the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. Today, more than a month after that disaster, they come and discuss it. I shall now tell the hon. member for Kensington what the hon. members who represent South-West Africa did.

On 20th March, only a few days after the disaster, the hon. member for Mariental, in whose constituency the disaster area falls, was already on the spot. At the first opportunity he had of getting there, when the water had subsided, he was on the spot. He then looked after the interests of his constituency. He had interviews with members of the Executive Committee, and with the Administrator. He then brought the matter to the attention of the Government, and at that stage already the hon. the Prime Minister had also acted. But today, more than a month after that event, the hon. member for Kensington comes along looking for political gain. [Interjections.]

What I actually want to discuss is another matter. I want to discuss automation in agriculture and the role which the Department of Agriculture can play in giving added momentum to automation in agriculture. I think we can describe the development of agriculture until now as the mechanization of agriculture. While I am speaking my mind goes back to the days when we still ploughed with wooden plough shares and drew water out of the well with buckets, and so on. I think we are living today in an era in which even mechanization is something of the past, and that we will have to think of automating agriculture. We will have to consider this when we take into account the great demands made on agriculture in providing food for the peoples of the world. It can also be said that we are today standing on the threshold of the greatest revolution in the sphere of agriculture. By this I mean the next few decades up to the year 2000.

I want to put it that of all the fields of science, agriculture is more than any other the one which lends itself to automation. We have a very fine Afrikaans saying which goes “A farmer will always devise a plan”. That is very true. I maintain that agriculture in particular lends itself to plans for mechanization and automation. This is the case because of the wide ramifications of farming activities. If one thinks of stock breeding, agronomy and its subdivisions such as viticulture, the wheat industry, the maize industry and so on, one realizes how much room for opportunity there is for automation in each of these spheres.

The topographical aspect of agriculture lends itself in particular to this. We have farmers who live hundreds of kilometres from the nearest town. If something happens on the farm such a farmer cannot rush through to town to fetch a spare part; he must devise a plan and discover something himself to solve the problem presented by the broken component. In addition there is the urgent nature of the problem, but in particular, what inclines us to automation in the farming industry is of course the tremendous shortage of labour. We must admit that the mechanization which we have had so far must be attributed mainly to the skill of the farmer and to the fact that he knows his subject. If a farmer discovers a patent it is easy to say that he should go to the patents office to have the patent registered. The fact of the matter is, however, that the farmer is simply a different kind of person. If he has discovered a particular patent for the agricultural industry he does not want to make a profit from it. He utilizes it in his own farming practice, and his neighbours may perhaps make use of it as well, but he will never have that patent registered so as to try to make money out of it. If we consider the mechanization in agriculture it is interesting to note that it is always people other than the farmers who try to make something out of it.

Let us now consider a modern farm in South-West Africa. To mention only one example, let us look at the different kinds of gates, and the way in which the gates are opened and closed automatically. One finds it there, and I can tell hon. members that it is fantastic to see all the patents. In the cattle-farming regions we can take a closer look at the different methods applied in crush pens, and the different head clamps with which an animal is handled when it is branded or dosed. Such progress has been made already that it is virtually unnecessary to lay a hand on the animal. It is possible to brand and dose and do everything to it without having to touch it.

You can also milk it in that way.

Yes, you can milk cows without touching them. If one considers the different water devices and the different levers attached to windmills to cause them to work more easily, it is astonishing. The gentlest breeze can today abstract water from a thousand foot borehole. Then there are the different grinders with which farmers shred different kinds of shrubs and bushes in order to provide the animals with fodder. It is simply fantastic. I have seen patents there which virtually forced me to shake my head and ask myself whether it is possible that such a simple farmer could display so much originality. Then there are, in addition, the different fodder patents. Hon. members are aware that there are livestock preparations on the market today which an animal cannot consume too much of, otherwise it may die. I know a farmer in Grootfontein who took a fly-wheel from a big engine and mounted it on a large basin in which the fluid is placed. The animals lick at the wheel, which revolves, and in that way they get a constant supply of the fluid, but not too much at a time. They tell me of another farmer who took this a step further. He mounted a number of different wheels according to a similar process. The animals stand in a row and lick at the wheel, and this causes the wheel to revolve. With the motive power thus obtained the farmer pumps water automatically. A farmer from Grootfontein took an ordinary old tractor and devised a patent for himself with which he removes bushes. This is a fantastic apparatus, and the largest caterpillar tractor cannot achieve as much success as that farmer achieves with his patent. It is worthwhile seeing something like this in operation. Hon. members know that kudu are a very great hazard in South-West Africa.

Last year more than 400 people died in motor accidents in the territory in this way. A farmer from Otjiwarongo devised a patent to counteract the kudu danger. He simply attached a cross-piece to an ordinary fence and attached two strands of wire to it. He erected an ordinary fence of 4 foot 6 inches with the cross-piece and the strands of wire over it, and a kudu will not go over it. A kudu will simply not go over it, while, hundreds, thousands and even hundreds of thousands of rand are being spent on the erection of game-proof fencing. In Somerset West I saw a farmer who had designed a new cylinder, a cylinder which he alleges—and it has been tested—can work for 50 years before it will be necessary to extract it and replace its parts. This is a fantastic patent if one knows from what depth water has to be drawn in the part of the world I come from. There it sometimes takes days to extract borehole pipes, repair and reassemble it. After that it is only a matter of a few months before the various parts are worn again. This farmer discovered this patent in order to eliminate the problem. It is a fantastic patent. I saw it, and I had to shake my head and admit that it was worth a great deal to the agricultural industry.

I can spend a very long time discussing these different patents, but I want to advocate today that a special branch be established in the Department of Agriculture which would conduct a survey among the farmers of these different original patents which are being used in agriculture. They could keep a written record of such patents, with the necessary sketches, and then channelize the matter. They can test them, and also distribute them. It may even be possible to pay these farmers a fee for those patents which they discover. In this way we can encourage automation in agriculture further. I foresee the day, within decades, within this century in which we are living, when agriculture will have been automated to such an extent that a farmer who practises agronomy, for example, will get up in the morning, put his tractors in operation on the lands, and then go home while those tractors plough the land for him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to break a lance for the small farmer who has to farm on a small unit. I do mot have time to react to the speeches made by hon. members on that side of the House. I do not want to discuss tobacco (tabak) at all, for hon. members opposite spoke enough nonsense (twak).

There is a great deal of speculation and gossip-mongering in regard to the small farmers on the small units. Many objections are being raised and misgivings expressed in regard to the place the small farmer has to occupy in the agricultural structure, the entire agricultural set-up in South Africa. It is true that in most agricultural countries of the world the number of farmers is decreasing tremendously. This is the case in America; this is the case in Europe. Here in this country we talk about the depopulation of the rural areas when we refer to the decrease in the number of farmers in the rural areas. Agricultural economists and other organizations state that it is scientifically, technologically, and for economic reasons as well, quite correct and that it is inevitable that the numbers of the smaller farmers farming on the smaller units will decrease progressively, and that they will subsequently disappear. It is being predicted that by the end of this century scarcely 40 000 of the present 90 000 farmers, actively engaged in farming will remain. Recently, too, there were articles in the Press under banner headlines about a possible 30 000 small farmers who will shortly be on their way out. Unfortunately, and quite unjustifiably the name of our hon. the Minister of Agriculture is being associated with this by means of subtle distortions. Hon. members on the opposite side in particular, when they find themselves in the rural areas, state this in such a way that it must seem as if it is the policy of the Government that the small farmer must be eliminated from the agricultural industry. This is untrue. This is not Government policy. What actually happens is that confusion is created in regard to the concept and the meaning of the “small farmer” and the “uneconomic farmer”. The confusion becomes greater when the small farmer is associated with an uneconomic unit. The fact of the matter is that a small farmer on a small farm with economic agricultural potential can farm very profitably, while a big farmer on a big farm may sometimes farm uneconomically and never achieve the production potential of which that farm is capable. It is this calibre of small farmer who has to be protected and who must be kept on the farm. We could preferably subdivide the big farm of the land baron and make the smaller subdivisions available to small farmers for them to cultivate intensively and obtain an in creased production yield per unit on it.

The rural areas may not become depopulated. For us, as Afrikaners, the rural areas have endless significance. Until recently we were still known as the Boerevolk. We are still proud of being called the farmers, or the Boerevolk of South Africa. The character of our people is orientated to the soil and the rural areas. Our forefathers were not wealthy people or land barons, but they, relatively speaking, supported and educated large families on small units. The intensively cultivated small farm, together with its owner, must be protected, cherished and preserved. This could maintain the balance of the population between the cities and the rural areas and make the distribution more equal. It can never be equal in numbers, but it can be equal in significance as long as the rural areas are able to retain their picturesqueness and character; as long as one still has the small farmer there. The big farmers and company farmers, who for the most part live in the cities and have their farms in the rural areas, will contribute to these areas losing their character as a result of the decrease in the population there. I feel myself at liberty to state that the retention of this type of small farmer is a matter the Minister and the Government have at heart, because they know that the most important factor in agriculture is the production per unit. They are aware that it is in fact the small farmers on small farms who can comply with this requirement, owing to the opportunity a small farmer has of maintaining more efficient supervision over his whole farm than the big farmer with his extensive farming enterprise. I make so bold as to say that all forms of State assistance to agriculture and to the farmer are directly and indirectly calculated and geared to keeping as many farmers as possible in the rural areas. Of this the small farmer is in fact receiving a considerable share. Therefore the Government and the Minister may not be accused of having geared their policy in respect of assistance to the farmers to causing the small farmer to disappear from the rural areas. My view is that the production ability of the small unit, as against that of the extensive unit of the big farmer should be retained, and its place in our agricultural set-up should be retained. This view is emphasized in article in Agrikon, quarterly journal of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and I should like to quote a few extracts from it to prove this. They say inter alia the following (translation)—

Then they make this very significant statement—

This is what the Department of Agricultural Economy and Marketing has to say. They then go on to state their reasons—

The Department also states that it is some times over-emphasized by farmers that when they purchase implements on a large scale for use on large units and utilize labour on a large scale it is more economic. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have reached the final point which I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister, and it arises again from the reply that he gave in this House some days ago. The hon. the Minister said in answer to me that the Cabinet had decided in 1963 to lease “the land on their recommendation …”, that is a committee which the Government had appointed, “ … to Mr. Bassiliou at a rental of R3 000 per annum for a term of 20 years”. Last year I put questions to the hon. the Minister on this very point, namely the question of the rental. What did he say then? He said that the rental was to be R300, not R3 000, per annum for the first six years, R600 per annum for the next four years, R480 per annum for the next ten years, and R650 per annum for the next five years—an answer completely at variance with the reply that he gave to this House last week.

What is the average?

I don’t know what the average is, but we are not concerned with averages; we are concerned with the actual rental. If the hon. the Minister was property advised, he would probably find that, like so many of the other conditions with which this lease began its life, the rental too has changed during the period of the currency of the lease, changed in favour of the lessor. What is the principle that emerges from all this? We are dealing here with 5 600 acres of State-owned land in a high rainfall area, a very considerable acreage of potentially highly productive land. The proper procedure is gone through, that is to say, that the land is advertised and tenders are invited. Now, Sir, what is the object of inviting tenders? So that the State can get the best advantage for State-owned land— that is the first point. The second point is so that everybody is placed on an equal footing when they apply for that particular piece of property. In order for this to apply in a way that is fair to everybody, not only must the conditions upon which it is advertised remain the same and not be altered when once the person whom the Government wishes to lease to, has been chosen; but if there is any material change then the land must be readvertised. What is the position today? You have a 25 year lease, four years of which have already gone.

The lease has also been altered.

Yes, the period of the lease has also been altered from 20 to 25 years. Now you have a long lease, most of which is yet to run, to produce a crop of which everybody agrees that the bottom has fallen out of the market. Only a fraction of the land which is to be put under that crop, has so far been developed for that purpose.

Say what it is.

Four hundred acres out of 5 600 have been planted with sisal. Now, what is going to happen to this land? Are we all seriously to accept that for the remaining 21 years this man is going to solemnly go on planting a crop on which he cannot make a living? The thing is absurd, Sir. If he is to be given permission to plant a different crop in the place of sisal, then I say, this land must be readvertised for the new purpose for which it is to be used. It must be readvertised and the conditions must be adhered to. If the position is that, once having excluded a number of people because of the severity of the terms under which you advertise the land, you then find somebody who is prepared to go in on a basis of no-one-else-will, and as soon as he has got his foot in the door, he persuades the department to change materially almost every condition which caused the others to be excluded, then you have favouritism towards that individual in question. That sort of thing is wrong.

You are assuming a lot of things. I said I would reconsider the lease if application was made for the growing of sugar on the property.

There is sugar grown on that property. At the time it was advertised, it was not available for sugar. This man was prepared to go in and he then found what everybody else had been telling him, that it would be an expensive undertaking. He then went to the Minister with a hard-luck story and said: “Oh, I have now got this land; it is not working out the way I thought it would; please give me permission to plant 248 acres of sugar, so that I have an income in the meanwhile.” This is the story the hon. the Minister told us. It is not my story; it is what the Minister told us last week.

You are talking about new development for sugar.

I am talking about, not only new development for sugar on the balance of the land which is what I fear will take place, but I am complaining about the fact that sugar was permitted in the first instance. The fact that sugar was permitted in the first instance was never made known to the public generally. Had it been known that sugar could be grown on this property, the Minister would have had a queue of people at his door, asking for this land. What is more, sugar is profitable on a comparatively small acreage. This property is 5 600 acres and it could support dozens and dozens of people if it was to be used on the basis of sugar. All I ask is that the hon. the Minister should adhere to the principle, namely that everybody is fairly treated when it comes to leases of this kind. Secondly, I ask that he gives this House an undertaking that no permission for a material variation of this lease from the existing conditions will be given without this land being readvertised, so that everybody can have a fair chance of obtaining the benefit from it.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of a certain issue, the hon. member for Zululand addressed his questions directly to the Minister of Agriculture, and therefore I shall not react to them.

Wise man!

No, Sir, it would have been easy for me to react to them if I had taken some trouble to pay attention to them, but I did not.

I want to make a few observations on a question which is becoming increasingly real in agriculture, namely that of the succession by younger people in agriculture. In 1970 we passed the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act. In terms of sections 4 and 5 of that Act, the subdivision of agricultural land is made subject to the approval of the Minister and uneconomic units will not be approved in future. We are already noticing the tendency, quite rightly a sound tendency, that units of agricultural land are increasing in size. In the future we shall have the position that, since agricultural units are becoming larger and at the same time fewer, and therefore more intensively capitalized, the question of succession by heirs will become increasingly real. In the first place, although these matters do not necessarily fall directly under the Minister of Agriculture, I want to plead that in the years ahead we should again pay careful attention to the question of estate duty and donations tax. These are two taxes which, because of the appreciation of agricultural land, will make succession difficult in particular cases. It would be profitable if we paid continual attention to this. My personal opinion is—I repeat it is my personal opinion—that considerable relief can still be granted in respect of estate duty in order to facilitate succession by heirs. I would appreciate it if the Minister concerned, who is responsible for agriculture, would also give this his support if we plead with the hon. the Minister of Finance about this matter in the future.

Sir, I also want to plead that what is advocated by the Commission of Inquiry into the Agricultural Industry should become the fixed policy of the Land Bank, i.e. that the standpoint should be adopted that if a farmer wants to borrow money in order to make succession possible, or if he wants to make a unit large enough for succession or wants to expand a unit so that both he and at least one son can obtain an economic unit, it would be a question of policy that in such a case a Land Bank loan would be granted.

Mr. Chairman, then we come to the question of young farmers. From cases I have had to deal with I have gained the impression that we have not thought deeply enough yet about our young farmers. We will have to arrive at a definite policy in respect of our young farmers. However, I want to qualify my statement at once by saying that I am not including any young farmer in this. One has reached the stage in agriculture where one can no longer say that because the father is farming and the son would like to farm, he should be helped. I want to qualify it very clearly by saying that I am pleading for the young farmer who, according to certain prescribed norms, has the necessary knowledge, perseverance and character to deserve assistance. I think we should arrive at a definite policy as far as these people are concerned. A very important agricultural country such as France has a definite policy in regard to these people. France lends its young people money at an interest rate of 4 per cent for 30 years for the purchase of land, and for 15 years at 4½ per cent for livestock, equipment, etc. I feel the time has arrived that we should place those people in a particular class as well. We should do something specific for these people who meet the prescribed norms, so that we may ensure sound succession in agriculture.

Then there is another matter which is becoming a bottleneck in agriculture. What I am going to say now is my personal opinion, and I do so with the greatest appreciation for what the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit are doing in respect of financing agriculture. I want to qualify it further by saying that, in their valuations of land, these institutions are called upon to place a damper on the price of agricultural land so that it does not reach unsound heights. However, I should like to ask in all courtesy whether the time has not arrived that these institutions should be a bit more realistic in their valuations. I am not requesting that their valuations should be market valuations; that, of course, is impossible. However, I feel that they are too conservative. That conservatism drives a certain type of progressive farmer who wants to get assistance from them, to private financial institutions. I feel that that type of farmer should also be helped by these institutions.

Furthermore—and I want to conclude with this—I want to ask whether the time has not arrived that the Land Bank should be enabled to spread its wings so that it may also help the well-to-do farmer and the strong average farmer, even if it has to do so at a higher rate of interest, as recommended by the commission of inquiry. This class of farmer is responsible for a very large proportion of our production. I think it would be in accordance with the new line of thought of the Land Bank, i.e. that it should do more towards financing agriculture, if it were enabled to help this class of farmer as well.

It seems to me that it is going to become a tradition in this House for the hon. member for Mooi River and myself to confront each other in the agricultural debate every year about the position of the fresh-milk farmer. The hon. member expressed his opinion yesterday—as he has every right to do—on the fresh-milk industry in South Africa. I appreciate it that he is looking to the interests of that section of our farmers, but I just want to tell him that I think he was a little pessimistic. I should like to take up a more positive attitude in this regard today. I just want to remind my hon. friend of the fact that the Milk Board was established by the present National Government, by the present Minister of Agriculture. Since the establishment of the Milk Board the milk farmer in South Africa has enjoyed security. Before the Milk Board appeared on the scheme, the fresh-milk farmer sent his milk to the milk-shops in the cities and towns and did not even know whether he would get all his money at the end of the month. He had no guarantee. Today the Milk Board gives him that guarantee, in other words, he can now plan ahead; he can build, because he knows the price he is getting and the percentage of his milk for which he will get the full price. Another great advantage which the milk farmer has, in addition to the security he gets from the Milk Board—I want to concede that he has problems too—is that he never has a crop failure. His profit may sometimes be smaller, but he never has a crop failure. He always gets his milk cheque, whether there is a drought or whether it has rained.

Sir, then I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Deputy Minister said yesterday about the milk farmer. Here, once again, it is a matter of efficiency. The fresh-milk farmer, who is not only a farmer, but also a businessman, will always make a good living. Sir, I have some of the biggest fresh-milk farmers in my constituency. Some of my efficient farmers have had a complete calculation of expenses made in order to find out what it costs to produce one gallon of milk. They arrived at 28 cents a gallon. If we look at last year’s report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, we see that the price was 37.8 cents a gallon. In other words, according to the calculation of those farmers they made a profit of 9,8 cents a gallon. I want to give you the example of a few farmers in my constituency. I have a big fresh-milk farmer in my constituency, who produces 2 000 gallons of milk a day. The profit of 9,8 cents a gallon gives him R5 880 a month or R70 560 a year. The hon. member advocated a higher milk price yesterday. If you were to give that big dairy farmer two cents a gallon more, he would make an additional profit of R1 200 a month, or R14 400 a year, which would then increase his profit to R85 000 a year. Let us take the smaller dairy farmer, who produces 200 gallons a day; his net profit is R588 a month. The profit of the average farmer who produces 400 gallons a day is just over R1 100 a month, or R14 000 a year.

I want to put another matter to the hon. the Minister, however. We find from time to time that we have a surplus of maize in South Africa. I want to put it to the Minister and the Deputy Minister like this today: In the light of the fact that we were told yesterday that our slaughter facilities would drastically improve in future, I want to mention the possibility of investigating the position and making a study of it in good time, so that our surplus maize may be used for the production of export beef in future. It is alleged that here is a shortage of beef practically everywhere in the world. In this way experts say, for example, that there is a shortage of 200 000 tons of beef a year on the continent of Europe at the moment. If you calculate this in terms of cattle, it means 800 000 carcasses of young cattle weighing more or less 500 lbs. each. It is further calculated that there is a shortage of 500 000 tons of beef a year in Japan. One finds the surprising fact that the per capita consumption of beef in Japan is only 15 to 20 lb. a year. This means that the annual shortage of 500 000 tons of beef in a country such as Japan represents approximately 1,5 million head of cattle. This shows us that there is a tremendous potential for the export of beef on the world market, and I think it will be worthwhile to make a study in this direction so that we will in future be able to use the surplus maize for the production of beef here in our country, and particularly with a view to exporting overseas.

Furthermore we find in the annual report of the department that 130 000 small calves were slaughtered in the controlled areas alone during the past year, calves which were more or less three weeks old. I want to suggest that if yellow mealiemeal could be used to save these calves in future, so that they need not be sent to the slaughter-house at this early age, they, too, could be used for the production of beef. I want to say, therefore, that I expect our maize industry to form a firm cornerstone for the production of export beef in future, and I am fully confident that our hon. Minister and his Deputy, with their department, will undertake the necessary study and research in this regard in good time.

In the few minutes left to me in this debate, I would like to raise with the Minister the position of Kirstenbosch National Botanical Gardens. I do so, because Kirstenbosch is at present threatened by a proposal by the City Engineer of Cape Town to the City Council to build a six-lane highway which will go along the boundaries of Kirstenbosch for quite a large portion of its length, a highway which will incorporate right opposite the entrance to Kirstenbosch a 20-foot high viaduct and a highway which will cut across ground at present used by Kirstenbosch for its nursery. I believe that this highway would do an immense amount of damage to Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens, for a number of reasons. The first reason is that this highway, incorporating as it does this viaduct right opposite the entrance to Kirstenbosch, would spoil the visual approach and the environment of the gardens. Secondly, I believe that this highway and the traffic that it would carry would be the cause of noise pollution as far as Kirstenbosch is concerned, because owing to the topography of that area the highway would go through a bowl which would serve as a form of megaphone and amplify the noise of the traffic. Thirdly, the fact that this highway would cut across land at present used by Kirstenbosch means— and I get this information from the director of Kirstenbosch—that it would take away from Kirstenbosch some of the comparatively scarce ground which is suitable for nursery purposes. Kirstenbosch has plenty of ground overall, but I am advised that for nursery purposes one needs gently sloping north facing ground, of which there is a scarcity within the boundaries of Kirstenbosch.

I realize that I am raising this matter at a very early stage because the proposals have not yet been considered by the City Council of Cape Town nor, of course, have they gone to the province, but I think that this may well be the last opportunity for me to raise this matter in Parliament before the matter reaches a more final stage. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister, particularly during the recess to watch this position very carefully indeed and should there be any danger of Kirstenbosch being jeopardized, to take the necessary action. I do not know what the necessary action would! be, but I am sure that the Minister and his department would be able to exercise considerable influence in this matter. If it is necessary for a highway to be built joining Newlands to Lower Constantia, as this planned road would do, there are other possibilities which the city engineer of Cape Town has already investigated. I make this appeal because the proposal which has been published has evoked a tremendous amount of protest, not only from residents of my constituency, but also from the whole of the Cape Peninsula and in fact the whole of South Africa. In fact, protests have been received from far and wide, some from America, and I have seen one from as far away as Hawaii, and I suggest rightly so. I do not need to tell hon. members of this House what a great national heritage and national asset Kirstenbosch is. It is recognized as such, not only in South Africa but by world-wide botanists. I think it is difficult to surpass in the grandeur and beauty of its setting. It is difficult to surpass in the wealth of its flora. It is unique in that all the plants grown at Kirstenbosch are indigenous South African plants, and I think it is unique in the tranquillity and the peace which it provides at a distance of no more than 7 miles from Cape Town. It is wonderful that we should have that tranquility and peace so close to the city.

As an indication of the world-wide fame of Kirstenbosch I would like to quote what Prof. Knut Faegri of Bergen. Norway, who is the secretary-general of the International Union of Biological Sciences, has to say.

He says—

T appeal to the hon. the Minister to keep his eye on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I identify myself completely with the standpoint of the hon. member for Constantia, who wants to retain the botanical gardens at Kirstenbosch as they are. I just want to say to the hon. member that their side has always levelled the accusation of mismanagement and ineffectiveness on the part of the Government and its Ministers. I assume that the hon. member, with the true political feeling he has, probably ought to have very great influence with the Cape Town City Council. It was their engineer who made the recommendation. I am prepared to support the hon. member in his representations. But I do think that the hon. member would probably have more influence with the United Party City Council of Cape Town than a Minister who has “mismanagement” in the departments under him. The hon. member should make his representations to the Cape Town City Council. I seem to think there was a time when he himself was also a member of that City Council.

You should not make a political issue of it; after all it is a serious matter.

Should I not make a political issue of it?

No.

And what about all the things of which you make political issues? That is a very fine thought; I am not supposed to politicise. When the National Party does something with which they do not agree, they are making a political issue of it, but when a U.P. City Council makes a mess of something, we may not make a political issue of it. Are the Cape Town City Council and its officials sacred?

Drop that now and discuss the matter on its merits.

I am still coming to that hon. member. I say that I agree fully with the plea of the hon. member that we retain as much of Kirstenbosch as we possibly can. But when the State intervened in some or other situation, hon. members opposite immediately accuse this side of the House of depriving local authorities or provincial authorities of their powers. In spite of this the hon. member has made a plea to me that I prohibit the Cape Town City Council from doing certain things. Surely the hon. member has the remedy in his hand. Surely it is his people who are governing there. If he can convince them that they should not do it, I would fully agree with his standpoint and support him.

I want to come to the hon. member for Zululand. Today he referred once again to the farm in Natal which had been leased, a matter which he mentioned about a week ago. By today he had cooled off considerably about the whole matter.

There is a much cooler atmosphere.

I want to level the accusation that that hon. member raised this matter in this House during the Budget debate because he hoped that, although the Minister would be present in this House, he would not be prepared to reply to those questions. If that had not been his intention, he would have told me beforehand that he wanted to talk about that matter. It concerns a transaction which took place in 1962, and which was changed in 1964. Therefore, it did not happen in my time, but in that of my predecessor. The hon. member cannot expect me to have here all the available data on that farm. The hon. member raised the matter late in the afternoon, hoping that the Minister would not be prepared to reply to it, so that he could proclaim a new scandal on the front page of the Sunday Times on Sunday. Let the hon. member deny that this is why he raised this matter at that stage.

You read my …

Surely that is the reason why the hon. member came to this House with that story. There are certain things which one should always know and which one should always take into account; there are certain things, animals and people, who must always be hit on the snout when they are seen, because if they are not coming from the place where they have done mischief, they are about to do mischief! The hon. member came to this House with this sort of story and tried to sow suspicion. He can get all the replies, and I have given them to him. In addition, he can get all the reasons why that farm was leased in that manner at the time. He can get the reasons why tenders were invited. It was regarded as essential that it should be leased in that way, because we wanted to encourage the sisal industry. I gave him the reasons why the lessee of that farm was given the opportunity of deriving an income from other crops. The reason is that by that time he had already spent large sums of money on that land. I gave the hon. member the answer as to why he was allowed to cultivate sugar cane. It was done because it does not merely take a day or two before one starts drawing an income from the sisal industry. I gave him all the reasons why his contract of lease had been changed from 20 to 25 years. In addition, I gave him the average price at which the land was being leased for 20 years. It was leased at an average amount of R3 000 per year. I gave all the information to him, without hiding anything from him. and today the hon. member said that he wanted an assurance from the Minister that that land would be readvertised if it was going to be leased for the production of sugar. The contract which the lessee of this land has with the Government, stipulates that he shall produce sisal there. It is the contractor’s problem whether the sisal market collapses or not. If the contractor has problems as a result of that, and if he does not want to grow sisal in future, he may ask for his contract to be amended or suspended. If that is done, a decision is taken: as to what should be done with it. But the hon. member indulged in suspicion-mongering and suggested that that contractor would receive those 5 000 acres for the production of sugar in advance at this stage already. When this land was put out to lease at the time, the recognized sugar institutions investigated the possibility of producing sugar. It was said at the time that that land, which, to a large extent, consists of sand-hills, was not suitable for the production of sugar. The hon. member knows that this is true. Now he says, “It is overlooking the Bell property.”

It is.

From where does it overlook the Bell property? The Bell property is situated lower down on the plains, the Umfolozi sugar mills is situated in the centre and this land is situated completely on the sand-hills on the outside. I want to say to the hon. member, “Table Mountain is also overlooking Table Bay.” The hon. member created the impression that these lands contain the same type of soil as is found on the lands of the Umfolozi sugar mills down on the plain.

I did not say that.

That is the impression the hon. member tried to create. I am aware that he did not say so, but why does he have to use the words “overlooking the Bell property”? He does so for the simple reason that the impression should be created that the land being leased, is in fact of the same quality as that of the Umfolozi sugar mills. I want to say something to the hon. member: When such an industry was encouraged in the past, especially in Natal, State land was made available for those purposes. How many sugar mills were not established in the past, in Natal, where the mill carries on its production on State land—State land which was leased not for 25 years, but for 99 years? Where such an industry was started, it was the practice to lease State land to the sugar industry in Natal for a period of 99 years. Why does the hon. member not mention that? I want to go further. The hon. member said that something underhand must have taken place.

You do not know what you are talking about.

That is the impression the hon. member is creating. On the strength of a promise the United Party put land out to lease in the Monzi area to soldiers who had returned from the war. Thirty of them were housed there and land was given to them. Now the hon. member complains because R3 000 has to be paid in rent for land from which bushes still have to be cleared. On what conditions was that land given to those people at the time? That land was given to the returned soldiers at a price of R6 000 per 120 morgen. According to the hon. member himself, that land includes some of the best sugar land in Natal. That land was given to them. But over and above that 120 morgen which they bought for R6 000, an additional 20 morgen was given to them. Furthermore, they received communal land from the State, land on which they could lay out a golf course. Every 120 acres of that land is worth at least R100 000 today, in spite of there being no buildings on it. But when that soil was washing away and when the drought started affecting those people, even more State land was allocated to them, land on which they could produce sugar so that they might make up for the losses they had suffered. But the hon. member does not talk about that, because those who are gossiping with him in Natal are, after all, a lot of English-speaking United Party supporters. That land was not put out to lease. After a year that man had produced enough sugar to pay the price of the land in full. There was a time when those 30 farmers in Monzi possessed the largest number of private aeroplanes of any community in South Africa.

What has this to do with it?

That is not the point. The point is that when those people were in difficulties as a result of droughts, it was right for the State to grant them assistance to overcome them. But here we have a person to whom land was leased. He had difficulty in getting his machinery here. He cleared the land of bushes. The land originally allocated to him, was taken away and other land was given to him. All these things were done. Because he had problems with his income, 84 acres of land was leased to him for the production of sugar. After 20 years that land will revert to the State. The land was not given to him at R6 000 per 120 acres so that he could produce sugar. This person spent large amounts of money on deforestation, but because the State has now given him this undertaking to enable him to get an income, it is an evil thing that has happened. The State is not supposed to assist this lessee. But these other people who received land from the State almost as a present, are to be assisted on every occasion. I repeat that if his name were not Papanicolaou but in fact Cadman or Mostert or Mitchell or, for that matter, Webber, that hon. member would not have said a single word about it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether this side of the House did not object when a certain Cadman—a Miles Cadman—received two farms?

The hon. member referred to advertisements, but those 30 farms which were given to those people at R6 000 each, were never given out on advertisement. Those farms were given to selected people. There were no advertisements at all. There were never any applications for the farms.

Answer my question. Did we object or did we not?

Do not cry about that now. Because of problems which arose there, this lessee was allowed to do certain things so that he could have an income. That income which he receives, is spent again on deforestation and improvements on the farm. But those other people who are living next to that hon. member on the Monzi plain, received production loans from the State. In addition, they received loans for taxes, deforestation, etc. Every penny which has been spent by this person up to now, has come from his own capital. He has not received as much as a tickey from the State in the form of a loan. I can understand that the hon. member is disappointed. The hon. member tried to dish up some gossip, which has now boomeranged. That is why he has come here this afternoon looking the way he does.

But there is a second matter which I just want to touch on briefly. The hon. member for Sea Point referred to the shortage of labour in the Western Province, and asked what the Minister intended doing about it. There are labour arrangements for farmers in the Western Province. Apart from the Coloured labour, the Department of Bantu Administration has a scheme in terms of which farmers may go and recruit non-White labourers. I, too, what is more, I am not agreeable to Bantu labour being able to enter the Western Cape in an unrestricted manner. What does the hon. member want me to do about the matter? I could ask for as much labour as possible to be brought in, which is in fact done.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Because of the special circumstances in the Western Province, would the Minister plead with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to allow Bantu to come here for longer periods so that they might be of more use to us? At the moment they are of no use to us after one year.

It is for the Department of Bantu Administration to decide on the periods for which labourers should be allowed to come and work here. What I find strange, is that when it comes to labour on the farms, the hon. member for Sea Point requests that Bantu should be brought in for longer periods, but when he

holds an election in Sea Point, he says, “Keep Sea Point White.” Surely the hon. member did say so.

I did not say so, but that does not matter. Does your farm become Black because you have non-White labour there?

Order!

The hon. member need not be so sensitive about it. Now I want to come to the hon. member for Kensington. He referred here to Mariental and said that the Minister had not made a statement on Mariental and an the floods which took place in the vicinity of the Hardap Dam. However, I do not know why I should make a statement to the hon. member on the Hardap Dam. What interest does he have in it? If the hon. member had had a farm lower down from the Hardap Dam, he would have known what the decision was on what is going to happen there. Then it would not have been necessary for him to ask me.

Why do you not reply?

I shall reply to the hon. member, but does he expect me to make a statement on it? South Africa is not concerned in what happens at the Hardap Dam, but it is of interest to the people concerned in it. If the hon. member had been concerned in it, it would not have been necessary for me to make a statement to him. If that were the case, he would have known what steps the Government had taken and what measures had been introduced. What was in, fact done, was that the State repaired the damage to those people’s lands. The State provides those farmers with assistance for repairing the damage to their lands. Where plots have been flooded to such an extent that they cannot be restored, we shall consider giving them other plots, if possible. If the hon. member wants to know what measures have been taken, I can tell him that they concern the loss of crops. Loans will be made available to those people so that they may sow again. Now I want to ask the hon. member again, why he thinks I should make a statement to him on the matter. The hon. member was dissatisfied because I had not made a statement, but he should not think he is so important that someone has to make a statement on whatever enters his head.

I should like to come now to the hon. member for Von Brandis. I want to congratulate the hon. member on the speech be made here. It was a constructive one in regard to our problems in respect of the Common Market and the steps which should be taken. I want to assure the hon. member that steps have already been taken on various levels. They concern grading, phytosanitary measures, the naming of wines, and many other things as well. Steps are also being taken in regard to marketing. The KWV and some of our officials have just returned from Europe, and the officials of the Deciduous Fruit Board are over there at present. From time to time the Departments of Commerce and Industries, particularly the Department of Commerce holds discussions in order to secure for us as favourable as possible a position within the Common Market. At the moment I do not want to elaborate any further on this matter. The hon. member will of course realize that when one has to deal with a market such as the Common Market which can impose levies on one’s products one may with the best will in the world smarten up one’s marketing procedure as far as possible but if that Common Market imposes so many levies on one’s products that one cannot get one’s goods on the market the position can become impossible. These are some of the matters in respect of which we are negotiating with the Common Market. In respect of other matters raised by hon. members, matters which do not really have anything to do with the policy in the agricultural industry, the department will furnish detailed replies in writing. This also applies to representations made by hon. members.

However, I want to come back, once again, to the hon. member for Newton Park.

Then you may as well reply to the hon. member for Kroonstad, too.

At the start of this debate I levelled the accusation at the hon. member that as far as agriculture was concerned, the United Party indulged in double-talk. I told him that when they arrived at certain places, they told the consumer that it was the fault of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Government that the price of consumer goods and food was so high. Then they talk about “butter scandals” and “meat scandals”. However, when they visit the farmers, the hon. member for Newton Park, for example, is sometimes in such a hurry that he nearly misses his aeroplane in order to go and tell the farmers how the Minister has failed to offer assistance to people who have been hit by floods and how the Government leaves the farmers in the lurch and does not ensure that they get decent prices for their products. The hon. member still owes this House something. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet put a very clear question to the hon. member. The hon. member said that the United Party’s candidate in Brakpan had said that the stock withdrawal scheme was the cause of the consumer having to pay so much now and that the stock withdrawal scheme was costing the country R120 million. In addition, he said that the Government was giving the farmers R120 million not to farm, and thus to make the consumer pay high prices.

I said that Civin had been given the wrong information.

I do not want to know whether Civin was given the wrong information. The hon. member himself very often has the wrong information as well. I want to know whether the hon. member is prepared to say in public and also to this House not only that Mr. Civin was given the wrong information, but also that he does not at all agree with him in respect of that statement he made. The hon. member should repudiate that statement. If, in mitigation for Mr. Civin, the hon. member for Newton Park wants to submit that he was given the wrong information, he has every opportunity to do so. I do not blame the hon. member for trying to extricate himself. All I am asking, is that the hon. member for Newton Park should repudiate Mr. Civin and say that speaking on the wrong information, if the hon. member wants to put it that way, he made an absolutely untrue statement.

But, surely, I have already said that.

No, the hon. member has not said so yet. The hon. member said Mr. Civin had been given the wrong information, and I do not blame him for trying to find excuses for Mr. Civin. However, in that case he should say that as a result of that wrong information, Mr. Civin had told an absolute untruth. Is the hon. member prepared to do so?

Surely that is enough.

That is precisely what I am accusing the United Party of, and I want to repeat it: The United Party is two-faced. When they go to the rural areas, they blow hot and when they talk to the consumers, they blow cold. In the meantime they are inciting these two groups against each other and against the Government.

That is ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous. These are facts. After all, I have just mentioned a fact to the hon. member. And he is not prepared to deny this fact. The hon. member himself does this. When butter was exported at a lower price at the beginning of the year, the hon. member, together with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, was the first to go to the Press and speak of a “butter scandal.” What, in fact, was the scandal in regard to this butter? The scandal was that the hon. member had implied that the Government—he did not say the Dairy Board—was exporting butter to Iran at a lower price—and immediately it is clear that the intention is in respect of Iran. He said the Government was exporting butter at a lower price to a country in the Middle East, while the consumers in South Africa had to pay more. This was the “scandal” to which the hon. member referred. However, the hon. member pleaded in this House for various agricultural products to be exported in order to stabilize the domestic price. Furthermore, he pleaded in this House that the Government subsidize the domestic price, and that when there was a surplus, the product be exported at a lower price. Surely that is only logical. However, when this is done, and it is possible for the hon. member to make some butter politics of the matter, which is going to be of no use to the housewife, he is quick to do so. If that butter which was exported to Iran, were distributed throughout South Africa, it would have meant a reduction of only half a cent or one cent on a pound. However, when the hon. member can make some butter politics, he plays Mr. Civin’s game. Then he, too, has been given the wrong information. Then he also comes forward with the excuse that he has been given the wrong information. He does not say it, but this is the impression he wants to create. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Newton Park is the shadow-Minister of Agriculture on that side of this House. I do not want to take much notice of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. If one took notice of that hon. member, one would get nowhere. Because the hon. member for Newton Park holds this important position in the United Party, and if he hopes to become Minister of Agriculture in 20 or 30 years’ time, he should also accept his responsibilities in this House and put his party in its proper place. He should rise now and say that Mr. Civin had been given the wrong information and that he created an absolutely false impression in regard to the situation. Then the hon. member would be a man. However, I know he is not the man to do so, and therefore I shall leave him at that.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 18.—“Defence”, R335 336 000, Loan Vote P—“Defence”, R8 730 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 8.—“Civil Defence”, R9 000:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half hour? We approach this Vote following a private member’s motion earlier this session and the Bill which is at present before a Select Committee. The latter eliminates from discussion today certain matters, including that of conscientious objectors such as the Jehovah Witnesses, and so on.

Therefore I want to deal with the Vote before us now against a broader background, against the background which faces the country as a whole and that of the neighbours who are friendly towards us with the problems which they face. For instance there are the problems which are faced by the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique and by the Rhodesians in Rhodesia where pressures are building up against those territories or provinces. Those pressures are placing strains and creating dangers which we in this country have to face, just as we have to face the dangers on our own borders in the Caprivi and in South-West Africa, where there have been land mine incidents, where South African lives have been lost and where South African men have been wounded. It is an area which, I may say, I had the privilege, through the courtesy of this Minister and the Minister of Police, to visit during the recess, as I had the opportunity to visit Mozambique and see all three of the forward districts of Tete, Nyasa and Cabo Delgado, by courtesy of the Portuguese Embassy and the Portuguese authorities. Therefore, Sir, when I speak of these things, I speak about something which I have not only read about, but also on the information, as far as one is able to gather it, obtained by having been there and having talked to the people concerned—both our own and those of our friendly neighbours. There is no doubt, as this House and South Africa know, that communist aid has been stepped up—in arms, equipment and men. It is a fact which we have to face but a fact which seems to be ignored by dogooders in the Western countries. It also seems to be ignored by people who should know better, including churchmen who speak of the terrorists and what is going on there as “freedom fighters”. But we are better informed, and we in this country know what we are facing and what is behind it. We face, amongst these threats, the problems of the Indian Ocean, which again I do not need to deal with at length. They have been dealt with before and we know where we stand. The problem there is also one of getting understanding across to people who should be our friends. This then, Sir, is the background of threats against which we meet here this afternoon.

There is a brighter side in the development and progress of our own arms programme to counter the boycotts and the embargoes against us, the greater self-sufficiency that we are achieving, the glimmers of realization that the Cape route is of importance to other countries and not just to South Africa; the joint exercises in which the British Navy again took part last year, and the fact that we now have two submarines, with a third one to come out shortly. In passing I would like to congratulate the crews of those submarines on the magnificent way in which they have adapted themselves to form part of the defences of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, this is the background. These are the facts which we have to face in South Africa. They lend to this Vote which is before us now an added importance from which we cannot escape, because every citizen of South Africa is concerned with the money which this House is now being asked to vote. This demands of every South African citizen a dedication and a determination to defend South Africa as one people, united in purpose, in intent and in willingness to sacrifice. I want to take this opportunity, against this background, to call upon those who support this side of the House, and to call upon all South Africans, to place the defence of our country, the defence of our nation, above personal feelings, above personal profit and above personal inconvenience. Whatever the provocation may he, whatever the bitterness or the hurt may be, or however deep it may go, the duty of every South African remains one of dedication to the security of our country and our nation. I appeal to national servicemen to accept the responsibilities and the inconveniences and the discomforts and the losses which they necessarily have to suffer. But I want to make another appeal, Sir. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to be diverted by the irresponsible and childish interjection of the hon. member for Carletonville. I want to make a special appeal to a group to whom I am going to refer later, and that is the volunteers in the South African Citizen Force. Many of them have spoken to me in recent weeks and before that. I know that many of them have been resigning, and that there are others who are unhappy. I want to appeal to them to stay in the Forces and to play their part, and I want to show in a moment why I believe that this is so important for South Africa. Sir, I have said this deliberately; I have said it because I want to indicate the spirit in which we on this side of the House approach the request which the Government is making to this House today to vote R335 million on Revenue Account, R3,2 million on Public Works for defence structures, and R8,7 million on Loan Account, a massive total of R347 million, which we are being asked to vote in a year of stringency, in a year of losses on the Railways and in the Post Office in a year of deficit budgeting and of cuts in Government spending. Here we are not cutting but increasing this Vote by R18 million. I want to say at once that we on this side of the House accept that increase. We accept it because we regard security and defence as one of the major priorities, without which we would be wasting our time talking about other things, because if there is no country that we control, if our defences should fail South Africa, then all the rest is a waste of time. But we as an Opposition have a duty, and I want to try to carry it out by querying and questioning some matters which flow from this Budget.

Dealing with expenditure I want to start with the amounts voted to Armscor, the Defence Equipment Fund and Arms Procurement. Armscor itself is big business today, with a balance sheet of R137 million, but at the end of 1970-’71, according to the Auditor-General’s report, it finished with a surplus of R44 million. The Defence Equipment Fund, which has spent R546 million on special defence equipment, finished that year with a surplus of R53 million, and Arms Procurement finished with R17 million, which has been set off against the Budget this year. That means a surplus of R97 million, as at the date of the last Auditor-General’s report, that is available to us. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister is whether that surplus has now been spent, or whether in this Budget we are voting an additional amount of over R120 million towards these funds when there are idle surpluses invested at a low rate of interest which could be used to meet the correct requirements. It seems unnecessary, at a time of economic stringency, simply to build up credit balances if we have enough money available to purchase our requirements.

*Then there is the money spent on men and on machines and the question of the division of that money. When we look at the Budget, we find that there is a total of approximately R123 million which can be identified as money spent on the human element of our Defence Force. Then there is R202 million which is spent solely on equipment or machinery.

†This division between men and machines is one which I believe has to be looked at very carefully. I find, for instance, that the expenditure on sport and recreation is a mere R150 000 out of a Budget of R335 million. This is an item affecting men.

Do you know what you are talking about?

Idiot!

Sir, I am talking about our young men who are prepared to risk their lives to defend our country.

On a point of order, Sir, may an hon. member call another hon. member an idiot?

Order! Did an hon. member say that?

Yes, I said it.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “idiot”.

I withdraw it.

Sir, I say again that this balance between men and machines is one which I believe we have to look at again. The task of this department is the task of turning R347 million of cash into security, and the way in which that money is turned into security depends to a large extent on the human hands which handle and control the machines. The responsibility for this expenditure rests on the accounting officer, the new Commandant-General, to whom I would like to extend our congratulations and our best wishes in this tremendous task. This is the first occasion on which he has been with us in his new official rank and I can assure him of our full support and all the influence we can bring to bear to make his task an easier one. If I could perhaps give him a motto for the task that lies ahead, it is the immortal words of a man who was himself a soldier—

That will be a task which all of us in South Africa will have to face—to keep our heads when others about us may be losing theirs. I say again that in this task men, their availability, their morale, the way they are armed and the way they are used are the key factor. We have said before—the hon. member for North Rand has raised this—that the ideal would be to have a Permanent Force Brigade available to us—always there, highly trained, well-equipped and intensely mobile. That is the ideal as far as dealing with what one might call “grass fires”, are concerned, the small blow-up here or the isolated blow-up there. But it is not the total answer to our security. That answer rests and will always rest in South Africa with the Citizen Force and with the Commandos. The Citizen Force depends and will continue to depend on its leadership, and the leadership will continue to depend on its volunteers. That was why I referred earlier in my remarks to the volunteer leadership in the Citizen Force. I sometimes wonder whether we have not allowed ourselves to make too many sums, to calculate that if “X” number of men are called up every year for ten years, at the end of those ten years you will have “Y” number of men and then you will have achieved your target. But it is no use saying—Hey presto! There is my target! It is no use having 100 000 men under arms if those men are leaderless because it is the leadership which will determine whether they are of any use in the defence of South Africa. Plans on paper are not worth the paper they are written on, and the sums are not worth working out unless there are the people there to lead them when the time for action comes. National service leadership will help but it will help mainly at platoon level, with platoon commanders, and perhaps at company commander level. But above that your leadership cannot come from a ten-year national serviceman doing the amount of training that he does. It must come from the volunteer who is dedicated and who makes this his mission. Therefore, I believe that our first task is to ensure that this volunteer leadership corps is strengthened and built up and that it is recognized as the important factor that it is.

I believe that there are four things militating against it. The first is that the spread of training over ten years is too long, and that it is destroying unit spirit because it calls for too big a sacrifice from the volunteer officer. It calls for a sacrifice which rebounds on his private life, on his family life, and on his economy to an extent which makes it difficult for many of them to stay. I want to take as an example the camps, the normal full-time camp of 26 days which every serviceman attends every third year. Tn practice most firms give three weeks’ leave a year. Those extra five days mean that a person cannot take his normal annual leave for which he is paid to attend a camp. He must in addition take unpaid leave and if he must utilize extra leave, many firms do not pay him for that. I believe that the simple reduction from 26 to 21 days, which would not affect the efficiency of your training, would make a tremendous difference in the approach of people who only get 21 days leave a year. But when one raises these matters often the reaction is : “Oh, you just want to cut down”. But the effect all this is having is breaking the hearts of many of our commanding officers.

The result is, and I make this my second point, that many units today are sufficiently under-officered to have serious consequences on the operation of that unit. There is not a Citizen Force unit that I know of in South Africa which does not have a serious shortage of officers. This reacts on the men because there are not the officers to maintain the leadership and to give them training, and to maintain control. This leads to reaction amongst the lower ranks.

This leads to what I believe is the third problem, that the men lose interest. They come to regard their responsibilities as wasteful and as a petty annoyance, and so you get absenteeism, which according to figures given this session ran to over 1 300 people over a year who were find over R28 000—all in one year. And that is only the fines in civil courts for absenteeism.

Tt leads, fourthly, to a situation where when a regiment is called up only some 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the actual men on the strength of that regiment attend that camp. The others receive deferment or exemption. You are therefore not getting a thousand men when a regiment attends a camp but you find only 200 or 350 available for that camp.

Now, it is easy to criticize but what are our suggestions? I believe that the first thing should be to reduce the ten-year period to four years, but to maintain the same number of camps, so that the men come in every year for three years, or three out of the four years, and so maintain the link and contact with the unit and so counter the destruction of unit spirit, to which I referred. The officers know their men and the men get their commitment over within a limited time, when they are still younger, and then they can go out into civilian life without this continual feeling that next year or the year after he may not be able to nay the rent or his hire-purchase commitments for a month while he is in camp. I believe it will strengthen our forces tremendously and I believe that we could work out some “sums” on this and fit it in to achieve the same objective which we now have in mind. I believe we should reduce the 26 days for camps to 21 days; they would fit in with the normal leave. I believe that we should replace the non-continuous parades where a man simply comes on parade, attends roll-call and has his hair inspected and perhaps attends a lecture— that we should replace them with two or three week-end bivouacs where they can do something useful and feel that they are part of the machine. If we have a war, we will have to fight on Sundays, because the enemy is not going to stop and it is nonsense that we should not use a long weekend to have a full three days bivouac. Defence, I believe, is something which should take place on 365 days a year, and would, if we were attacked. Therefore I believe bivouac over a long week-end replacing this monthly parade will do a great deal to raise morale and to change and improve the approach towards training. Fourthly, I believe we must look again at the nine months’ training to see whether we cannot make better use of the last three months of it which, although there has been an improvement, is still a source of continual complaint and dissatisfaction which, I believe, weakens morale. These are the practical things which I believe we can deal with to improve the manpower situation. If we look at this Budget we find that out of the increase of R18 million only R4 million is devoted to salaries and wages. I believe that we could spend more on the men, on their salaries and wages, on their transport to get home during their leave or during long week-ends and on their recreational facilities, so that we can get a more dedicated approach by all National Servicemen towards defence.

In the few minutes left to me, I want to deal with one or two aspects which other members will follow up or to which we may come back later. The first is the question of the Public Service Commission. The Defence Force, that is the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, does not like Government offices, work from 8 o’clock to 4.30. You cannot apply to it the standards and ranks of the normal Public Service. One of the effects of this is that you get a top-heavy rank structure, because the only way you can pay a person what you need to pay him and what he deserves is by promoting him. You should be able to nay not simply the rate according to rank. Consequently you have to create a ton-heavy general and brigadier structure. But you should be able, within the Force, to have your own salary structure which complies with the requirements and with the duties and responsibilities of the different posts. Let me take another simple issue. Apprentices at Simonstown were granted an increase in January, 1971, that is 16 months ago, but they have not yet received it. They have not received it because there has been an argument between the Minister of the Interior and the Public Service Commission, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Defence. This has been going on since late in 1970. It was approved last year, but the arguments between the Public Service Commission and the Department of Labour have only been sorted out recently. I hope that these apprentices will now soon get their back pay. This is not the way to create good feelings. This is not the way to build up a feeling of dedication towards the job. I feel that this is an aspect which must be looked into.

I want to deal with the call-up in January before the matriculation results are known and before the boys know whether they have passed, whether they are going to the university or whether they have to go back to school. Then you get the sort of thing which happened this year with the Nuffield Week and with the matriculants. I believe that this is something which has to be investigated. The allocations themselves are still showing weaknesses. Take for instance the case of a merchant seaman. He is obviously a person who should belong to the Navy. We are not taking into account chaps who have done three or four years as merchant seamen crew; when they come back here they are attached to a commando unit. They have to guard petrol tanks or things of that nature. We must make the best use of the capabilities and the future occupations of the men. I raise it year after year and still I do not believe that we have achieved the objective. I do not know what the reason is, but the answer is obvious. It is to pay more attention to the training, the background and the aptitude of the men who are called up.

I want to deal with the question of the notification to parents of illness or accident to their children. There has been an improvement but it is still not right. I get continuous complaints from parents who say that they have only heard by accident that their son was in hospital. Many are told that he was not seriously ill and therefore they were not notified. You just try to tell a mother whose son is in hospital that he is not critically ill ! It seems a simple matter to notify a parent immediately a person is injured or goes into hospital. I take a thing like dental treatment where all a trainee can get is a temporary filling or an extraction. These boys are in for a year. In a year that temporary filling can lead to deterioration, so that he has to have major dental treatment. Surely, when you are spending R335 million, you can give a man a filling in his tooth instead of a temporary filling.

I refer to the delay in notification and the pathetic scale of compensation for boys killed or injured on duty. I do not have time to develop that, but it is something to which we will return. The workmen’s compensation scale is a pathetic one for somebody who loses his life in the service of his country. I believe there is far too long a delay in finalizing affairs regarding funerals with the parents when there has been a death.

Mr. Chairman, one of my colleagues will deal with civil defence. Another of my colleagues will also deal with vehicles.

I want to question the progress with Advokaat and with Decca. There have been delays in this regard. There has been an increase in cost. I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what it is.

I want to make a plea for pistol clubs to be incorporated into civil defence and to be entitled to buy ammunition at cost price from Armscor, not for nothing but at cost price. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the start of this debate I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Admiral Hugo Biermann, the new Commandant-General of the South African Defence Force, on his appointment to this high office, and express the hope that as we got to know him in his long career of distinction in the South African Navy, his term of service in this high office will also hold nothing but the best for South Africa in the sphere of defence.

†Then, Mr. Chairman, I have the opportunity of congratulating another gentleman in this House, namely the hon. member for Durban Point. It is really a pleasure for me to congratulate the hon. member for Durban Point today on the most positive and most responsible speech he has ever delivered in this House on defence matters. I can only express the hope that the hon. member and his colleagues will proceed on these lines in future.

*Mr. Chairman, I believe that in view of the threat with which we are dealing, nothing could do more to discourage our potential enemies than a demonstration of unanimity on a matter as serious as defence. If our enemies were to gain the impression that discord and confusion prevailed amongst the population of South Africa, it would be like giving them the green light. For that reason it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member.

That is the kiss of death.

Mr. Chairman, an hon. member has just said: “That is the kiss of death.” I really want to draw that hon. member’s attention to the fact that we are dealing with a very serious matter here today. I believe that members on that side of the House are intensely interested in the security of our country. I find it a pity that that hon. member could not restrain himself and nevertheless made such a remark. The hon. member for Durban Point and I disagree many a day, and I suppose we shall also disagree in the course of this debate. But I think we have one thing in common, and that is that we take a serious interest in the security of our country.

I said that if our enemies had to gain the impression that discord prevailed inside South Africa, it would be like giving them the green light to step up their activities. The new Commandant-General told us recently that the incidents of terrorism on our borders and in our neighbouring states would increase in the years ahead. This is the reality we are dealing with. I know that whenever one makes these statements voices are often heard to say: “You are fanning a war psychosis.” I want to express the hope that we shall not view it in this light today, but that we shall view it in deadly earnest as the reality in which we are living.

It is a source of joy to me to be able to say today that after many years of, I almost feel like saying, adversity which we have had in this sphere of convincing friendly Western countries of the gravity of the situation here, and after years of sustained efforts on the part of responsible leaders in our country to convey the reality of the situation to the greater world, a ray of light has filtered through in the sense that more and more people in positions of responsibility abroad, namely the Western world, no longer shrug off the security of Southern Africa, but have started to look at it with intense interest. On the occasion of a previous debate on the private motion of the hon. member for Middelburg earlier this year, I referred to the opinion of a person such as Gen. Kruls of Nato who, after an assessment of the situation on the southernmost point of the African continent, stated unambiguously that South Africa was to be brought into the defence set-up of Nato. He stated unambiguously that South Africa had an extremely important role to play in the joint defence of the Free World, apart from its own security. There were other opinions as well. There were not only opinions; there were also actions by friendly powers. I do not want to mention their names here today, but there were the actions of friendly powers who had started to see the gap in the Indian Ocean and the danger it created, not only to the Western World, but also to South Africa. They are prepared to proceed to taking action.

There is an increasing interest in our strategic situation. There is a rush of people with authority and knowledge to South Africa. This does not appear in the newspapers every day, but we who share that interest, are aware of it and come into contact with those people. They are coming to South Africa in increasing numbers in order to observe the position for themselves. Many of them do not hesitate to support the standpoint which we have emphasized persistently over the years.

That is why I say that in the midst of the hard realities of the situation we have, this is the ray of light. Today I want to pay homage specifically to the hon. the Minister of Defence as the person who has at all times persisted in drawing attention to this aspect in all quarters, here as well as elsewhere in the world. In this process the hon. the Minister suffered many undeserved set-backs and blows in other part of the world, sometimes in South Africa as well. But he did not only persist in that standpoint; in the administration of his department he also set the example which won him the confidence of our entire Defence Force. He practises what he preaches in the administration of his department. That is why one gets the testimony of a person such as Alan Forrest, who wrote as follows in the week-end edition of the Cape Times on 18th December, 1971—

This is a testimony which also comes from inside South Africa. I believe that that view is shared in those quarters where the hon. the Minister has, also in countries abroad, persisted in stating our case and our standpoint. That is why we have progress in this sphere today. My time will not allow me to say much more and to deal with points raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. However, I just want to refer to one aspect. He mentioned salaries and facilities for the human factor in the Defence Force. I want to agree with the hon. member that one has to do one’s utmost for the human element. However, I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that increases were announced two years ago, and that this Government has always shown that if and when it is necessary, it does give proper attention to this aspect as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this is a very happy day for me, because I can welcome in the discussion of the Defence Vote an old colleague with whom I served in the Defence Force for years, in war and peace, namely Admiral Biermann. It is a unique position which Admiral Biermann has to fill. As far as the organizations of defence forces of the Western world are concerned. I do not know of any admiral who has been set the difficult task of handling the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. The appointment has come in difficult times and it will most certainly be a challenge to him. I do not have the slightest doubt, however, that with his integrity and his ability he will perform that task in a commendable way. This is not only a feather in Admiral Biermann’s cap, but I think we can congratulate the Navy as well. It is the youngest of our Defence Forces and in a short time the head of the Navy has been promoted to head of the Defence Force. I think we can congratulate the Navy on this as well. From this side of the House we wish Admiral Biermann all the best for the years ahead. We are sure that it will be a difficult time, but we are equally sure that he possesses the ability and the quality to handle this task.

As the hon. member for Stellenbosch said, we are mainly being threatened from the north today. We cannot expect that threat to diminish. As long as there are do-gooders, people who should know better than to encourage these people, the threat will grow. We must take cognizance of the fact that there are people who have their eyes on Africa. The one bulwark with which they are faced is the Republic of South Africa. This red stream which I am talking about is the one which is now rapidly flowing through Zanzibar into Tanzania and from there into Zambia. When that railway line has been completed, we can expect that the people who will make use of that railway line will not all be railway workers. So we cannot expect that threat to diminish.

But there is another matter which worries us, and that is the position which is developing in the Indian Ocean today. As we all know, the British Navy, which occupied a very strong position there for years, is so weak and widely scattered now that it can no longer play the part which it played in the past. We also know that the Soviet Union is building up its naval forces in the Indian Ocean. We do not know what pattern it is assuming. We do not know where the emphasis is going to be placed, but we know that that power is growing stronger and stronger. Unfortunately for us it is here in the Fast that we are at our most vulnerable. The one commodity for which South Africa is still completely dependent upon the outside world is oil. We get our oil from the Middle East, across the Indian Ocean. With the equipment we have it is impossible for us to protect that route on our own. We ask ourselves at once: What are we doing to come to an agreement with people who have the same problem as we have? I am thinking, for example, of the fact that we have countries east of us which should normally be very favourably disposed towards us, countries such as Australia and New Zealand, countries which have fairly strong navies. West of us we have the Argentine and, fortunately for us, mighty America. We know what the position has been up to now, that people have not been very favourably disposed towards us, but fortunately signs of change can be perceived, and it seems as if they are now realizing how valuable our strategic position here, and how valuable our harbours and technical resources in South Africa can be for them, as well as for us, in time of war. We hope that such a change will now take place. Now we ask : Is something being done? Can something be done to come to an understanding with these people? We do not have a strong understanding with Britain, but a similar understanding with the other countries would be of immense value to us. Since the arms embargo was lifted, the relations between South Africa and the British Navy have been excellent, and one would very much like to see the adjacent powers wanting the same relations with us. I ask: Is something being done to promote these good relations?

†Mr. Chairman. I would like to come back to one matter which my colleague from Durban Point has raised, namely the question of civil defence. We know that the Minister has quite a big staff at his disposal for handling civil defence. I have no doubt that they are doing good work. But the general public does not know what is going on. The general public does not know what these people are doing: they do not see anything being done, and what is worse is that I do not think the general public is in a position today to know what their task would be in an emergency. According to a reply from the hon. the Minister we seem to have officers in charge of Civil Defence at the various commands and we seem to have N.C.O.s, but unfortunately we also see that very few directives have been issued. Directives are still being drawn up. Public first-aid training programmes and demonstrations have been discontinued since 1971. Sir. I do not think that this is good enough. It is very important that we should have an efficient civil defence organization. It is very important that the general public should know what to do and where to do it in times of emergency, not only in time of war, but in times of disaster such as floods, fires and that sort of thing. With a staff like this it seems to me that there should be no difficulty in getting this machine going and showing the public that something is being done. I think I can say that the public is not happy about what is happening in the sphere of civil defence. [Time expired.]

Sir, the debate so far is probably the calmest introduction to a defence debate we have had in this Parliament in the last six years. It is surprising if one thinks how brave hon. members opposite were 14 days ago. If one thinks of the threats, which were accompanied by the waving of arms and the showing of fists, made against the hon. the Minister of Defence 14 days ago, one is surprised that the hon. member for Durban Point this evening made the nicest introductory speech that I have ever heard him make.

Do you want to start that fight again?

Before the hon. member for North Rand becomes too excited, I want to say immediately that I leave the matter at that. I only made this observation because one cannot help viewing with astonishment the calm on the other side. That calm has been caused by just one election result.

We are decent people.

I want to concentrate more on local affairs and matters affecting the Defence Force, for which provision is made in this Budget. I appreciate the thoughts expressed by hon. members on the international situation. In the first place, I should also like to extend my very sincere congratulations to the Commandant General, Gen. Biermann, on his appointment to this post. I have already communicated with him on behalf of this side of the House.

Sir, a matter that it affords me great pleasure to bring to the attention of the House this evening, is the increased interest in the art of shooting evident in South Africa at all levels, and the interest in Defence Force affairs in all units of the Defence Force, and especially in remote parts, in commandos and other units. Sir, to give you an idea of this interest, I just want to refer to the increase in the number of persons participating in the national bisley, which is again in progress in Bloemfontein at the moment. This increase is attributable mainly to what South Africa has received through the agency of the hon. the Minister and his Department in the past five or six years. Since 1966 the number has risen from 424 to 740 this year. What is of particular importance, is that about 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the members taking part in this bisley at present, are quite young members who have completed their national service, or who are taking part in this bisley as a result of an interest their fathers nurtured in them. That is what this House had in mind with all the benefits which the Government was asked for and which the Government granted. But another important reason for this is the weapon manufactured by Armscor—our own RSA rifles. These rifles are of excellent quality; they compare with the best in the world, and South African as well as overseas marksmen are achieving absolutely brilliant results with these rifles. This achievement, which is attributable to a product manufactured by our own people, also contributes to this greater interest in the Defence Force. But, Sir, there is a problem I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and it is this : As a result of this greatly increased interest in shooting, it is found today that our Defence Force ranges are becoming too small to cope with the traffic on those ranges. I know that it has already been decided in principle to move the De Wet rifle range at Bloemfontein to another part of the site where it is situated today. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, if it is at all possible in the light of our present financial position, to give priority to this within the next year or as soon as possible, and also to see to it that this range, which easily will have to handle numbers of 1 200 and more on occasion within the next five years, is planned in such a way that it will be able to accommodate 1 200 marksmen and more. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there is so much interest in this matter that men in Bloemfontein have said to me in the past few days : “If the hon. the Minister tells us tomorrow that we have the right to enter that site, then we should like to obtain his permission to sink a borehole there at our own expense, and also at our own expense to plant hundreds of trees there to provide shade and to beautify the site, especially in that part where the building will be erected for use later on.” I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to give priority to this matter if possible.

Another matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister by way of inquiry is this : I have heard— and I think it has already been made known on a limited scale—that consideration is being given to the establishment of a training college, which will probably be called the advanced staff college or combat college, and which will also be related to the existing army college. I would appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister, when he replies to the debate, could perhaps give us more details, if it is possible to say at this stage what is being planned in regard to such an advanced staff college, and also where these various colleges will be situated and what is being planned in regard thereto. Connected with this there is the question of colonels’ posts and other senior posts which have become redundant to some extent in the past year, since the last session of Parliament, with the result that some of these gentlemen had to be accommodated in other spheres and that others will retire from the Defence Force in the normal way in due course. I wonder whether it will not also be possible for the hon. the Minister to give this Committee an indication of what the position is regarding the organization and/or reorganization of officers holding that rank and perhaps even higher ranks.

Then there is a last matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and this concerns drivers’ licences in the Defence Force. We have the situation in South Africa that a person can get a Defence Force driver’s licence at the age of 17 years. That driver’s licence enables him to drive light vehicles and under certain circumstances, heavy vehicles on provincial and other public roads, but as soon as he, without having a provincial licence drives on the same road in even the smallest car that he owns privately, he contravenes the Act and may be arrested. He must have a provincial licence to drive a private motor vehicle, but with a Defence Force licence he may drive on the same public roads without having a provincial licence. This creates confusion. I think this is unnecessary duplication, and I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister will repeatedly—it is sure to be repeatedly— make representations to the provincial authorities requesting them to give serious attention to working out a formula in accordance with which a licence that will also apply in the Defence Force may be issued, or, alternatively, that the Defence Force licence should be recognized for all purposes by the provincial authorities. Sir, the test set for a Defence Force licence is as difficult as, or more difficult or more intensive than, the test for a provincial licence. We have this ridiculous position today that a licence for which one has been properly tested, entitles one to drive military vehicles on our roads, whereas one is not allowed to drive a private vehicle on those roads. I think one of the most important factors in this difficulty is the R6 an applicant for a licence has to pay. I do not think that the amount that may be involved in this for the provinces is so large that it need cause a hitoh in any negotiations between the hon. the Minister and the provinces to find a uniform formula for these licences. I hope that the negotiations can be continued in the future and that this confusion will be eliminated, because I have had to deal with several court cases where youths were charged with driving a motor vehicle without a licence, and then they said to me: “But, Sir, I have my Defence Force licence; I know I was told in the Defence Force that I had to obtain a provincial licence as well, but later on I forgot about it; after having driven military vehicles for nine months or a year, I became so used to it that I thought I was covered by a valid licence, and now they charge me because I do not have a provincial licence.” I think it is time that confusion was eliminated, and I personally shall greatly appreciate it if the Minister can attend to this matter once again.

In this connection there is another matter which has been worrying me for a long time—I have already brought it to the hon. the Minister’s attention—and this is the large variety of vehicle models in our Defence Force. I do not know whether this is quite the right thing. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us a reply to this to reassure one a little, but I am of the opinion that a smaller number of models, for which a smaller variety of spare parts need be kept, could perhaps bring about a saving in costs. [Time expired.]

I should like to associate myself with previous speakers who congratulated Admiral Biermann on his appointment to the highest post in the Defence Force of South Africa. We all know that it is through his competence and gift of leadership that Admiral Biermann reached this very high position. I want to congratulate him and wish him every success for the future.

†It is only natural, since we are today discussing this most important Vote on which we are going to spend, within the next twelve months, the sum of R323 million for the defence of our country, that we should be calm and collected in our discussions here this afternoon. There is no need for anyone to become excited. We are very proud of the fact that here on the southern tip of Africa we today have the strongest army in Africa. We have certainly come a very long way to reach this high position which we hold as Whites in Southern Africa. Previous speakers have been discussing the Vote in general, and while we are all very proud of our army with its generals and our admirals and the personnel who are running the army and supervising everything to the best of their ability, we all acknowledge that there are areas where we can make improvements. One point which does worry me as a member of Parliament is the way many of our young men are being called up to do active service. As you know, our national servicemen are given preference in serving in South Africa’s defence forces. In the first place we know that while they are still at school a guide is sent out to prospective servicemen to help them to fill in the questionnaire. This guide is very helpful. We know, too, that they are given a preference, and in many cases they are given a second choice as well as a third choice. There is nothing wrong with this. Many of our matriculant boys advise the selection board through the questionnaires what their preference really is. We know that the Navy is a very popular choice and so is the Air Force. We also know that these two services cannot accommodate all the boys who wish to go there. What disturbs me in the first place—and this is something which causes trouble and confusion towards the end of each year— is that when boys state in the questionnaire that they want to go to university, they clearly stipulate they would like to go to either the Navy, the Army or the Air Force, but that they would like to start approximately on the 8th January when the training normally commences; but invariably we find that boys who are not going to University and have not stipulated that they want to go to university are called up during that period and those who want to go to university are very often called up to start their training on about the 9th July, ending on the 17th June the following year. I believe this can be avoided. In East London, I have a lot of trouble towards the end of each year, in telephoning the Exemptions Board, the registering officer and his personnel in Pretoria, in order to try to clear up these problems. I must admit that the registering officer and his personnel are always very obliging indeed. They do all they can to assist one in solving this problem. They find themselves trying to make the best of a bad job, which should not have been necessary in the first place. I believe that there is something wrong with the selection board’s review of the questionnaires which all boys have to fill in before leaving school. Then there is another matter I would like to raise. As I have said, I have had cases of boys wanting to join, the Navy and wanting to train for skindiving, simply because their fathers and their grandfathers were men of the sea, who themselves had served in the Navy, and because the boys themselves are very good swimmers. They have taken up swimming from an early age while at school and they have turned out to be champion swimmers for their particular area or even province. These people then ask to be allowed to take up skindiving. Some of these boys are notified that these posts have already been filled, but invariably you find that boys who have not even learned to swim, are accepted for skindiving. We have the old saying that you must first learn to walk before you can run, and surely you must first learn to swim before you can dive! These boys are going to do skindiving although they have never learned to swim or cannot swim very well. These are the problems which I believe we should try to solve. I know it is difficult when you have to call up between 23 000 or 25 000 young men for national service every year, but these are problems which I believe can be solved. I feel that all those in authority should do their best In trying to solve these problems.

Mr. Chairman. I see that the amount of R5 000, instead of R3 000, is being requested for the coming year in respect of medals. This has made me look back at the beginning of our series of South African medals. I should very much like to draw attention to one or two of these exceptional medals or decorations with South African motifs, and then make a plea for the supplementation of our series of military decorations and medals. When we look at the decorations and medals of our Defence Force, one of the two most attractive ones to me is the Cape of Good Hope decoration.

†Mr. Chairman, this decoration is the highest South African decoration. It can be awarded for signal acts of valour on the battlefield. It is made of gold and is in the shape of a five-pointed star, representing the Castle of Good Hope. The obverse has the very interesting point of a raised centre depicting the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck in his flagship, Dromedaris, in Table Bay. The scene is surrounded by a wreath of proteas and leaves.

*This is as typically South African a decoration as we can get. Furthermore, one of the most attractive decorations, which was introduced in the fifties, is the Southern Cross medal. This medal, which may be awarded in times of peace or war in recognition of exceptional conscientiousness, has already been awarded to several hundreds of members of the Defence Force. This is also typically South African; the obverse is in navy blue enamel and depicts the night sky with the stars of the Southern Cross in silver. It is something out of the ordinary to see this on the uniform of a member of the Defence Force at ceremonial parades.

Whenever we have very great occasions in our country—I am thinking, for example, of the past two Republic festivals; the first one in Pretoria and the second one here in Cane Town last year—it strikes one that on neither of these occasions the Defence Force had a special medal struck to be awarded to every member of the Defence Force who took part in the proceedings on that occasion, whether on land, in the air or at sea. I think it would perhaps be a good idea if on the occasion of the next Republic celebrations special medals were to be struck and awarded to all members of the Defence Force taking part in the celebrations, especially those members of the Citizen Force and Commandos who will perhaps have that privilege only once.

Then I should also like to put forward the suggestion to the hon. the Minister that, especially in view of the fact that at present our youth are showing exceptional interest in the Defence Force and everything connected with it, a colour-illustrated chart of all our medals and decorations should once again be published, especially for high schools and units where national servicemen are receiving training. That would be very informative.

The second matter I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister is the matter concerning the instructors in our Defence Force, who are rendering such an outstanding service to our Fatherland in the training of these thousands of national servicemen. These instructors from the very important point of contact between the officers and the national servicemen, who are left in the hands of these men virtually straight from their parental homes. Every year I have intimate contact with many hundreds of these national servicemen, and I want to say that I have never heard any national serviceman saying an ugly word about our instructors. This goes for the Army as well as the Air Force and the Navy. But there is no way in which the corps of instructors may be identified. By and large they wear the same uniforms and badges as do other members of the Defence Force. When they are in civilian clothes, there is also nothing by which they may be identified. To what extent one may grant recognition to these people, more than mere financial remuneration only, I cannot say at this specific moment. But I just want to tell the hon. the Minister and this House that the corps of instructors is doing wonderful work, and that some or other tangible way of recognizing the good service rendered by them, would probably stimulate them to further effort and strength.

The third point I want to submit for consideration by the hon. the Minister, is the return to the horse in our commandos where such opportunity offers and where the terrain permits. One of the commandos that falls under my constituency, the very good commando of Bronkhorstspruit, brought the horse into their training programme a few years ago. I can tell the House that horses were extremely popular until the commandos started encountering problems. It was especially the young men of the town, who did not have the opportunity of learning the art of horseback-riding, who kept horses on the shooting range. Stables were also built. What is most significant to me in this whole set-up, is that this commando achieved very good results with their night exercises against “terrorists” in the wooded area to the east of Bronkhorstspruit in the direction of Cullinan. Unfortunately, this practice had to be stopped because of problems that were experienced. If we look at our extended frontier-line, following the course of the Limpopo River along the border of Botswana from Gaberones up to Messina and beyond, I am reminded of the saddle-horse which played such a special role in the military history of this country. One thinks of famous warhorses such as Flew and Somerset and the thousands of chargers that died with the burghers and the combatants on both sides in the Anglo-Boer War. One also thinks of the monuments erected to horses in our country. There is one in Windhoek; there is Gen. De Wet’s horse in Bloemfontein and various other splendid equestrian statues. I think I have also seen a very fine statue in Port Elizabeth or East London. That goes to show that the horse is connected with the army in our country. If the horse could be introduced in the commandos in some way or other, it would be able to operate very usefully, especially in the wooded area on the northern border of the Transvaal. The advantage of a saddle-horse in the bush is that it does not make a noise, which cannot be said of a jeep, a land-rover, or a helicopter, irrespective of how useful those helicopters may be. I do not think that a landmine would easily explode under the four legs of a horse. What is significant, is that it can move quietly and is also effective at night. I should very much like to submit this suggestion to the hon. the Minister and the Army Command so that the saddle-horse may be brought back in its traditional role wherever it is opportune to do so.

As far as the staff is concerned, there is only one matter which I also want to raise with the hon. the Minister and the Supreme Command on behalf of retired members of the Defence Force who have re-entered the service, namely the case of persons who performed specialized duties, such as the work of a sergeant-major, which cannot easily be performed by two, three or four newcomers to a post. When that retired person is re-employed, he often has to do exactly the same work at the same desk or table when he voluntarily applies for a post and is reappointed. The basic problem is that that person’s remuneration is so much less in such a case I know that this is in keeping with the provisions of various regulations and rules, and this is probably correct, but I believe that there are exceptions Some of these people render valuable services to the Defence Force in what are virtually key posts. By those means manpower is saved and other men can be released for doing other routine work. Therefore I actually have no hesitation whatever in asking the hon. the Minister to adapt that policy, which is rather rigid at the moment, in such a way that, in a case where a person rendered exceptional service for 20 or 30 years and comes back for three, four or five years to do the same work and in doing so releases other men for doing other useful work, such oases may be reconsidered on merit so as to see whether such a person may not come closer to the remuneration he received at the time of his retirement.

Mr. Chairman, by this time it may be a little late in the day, but I do feel the need to associate myself with some of the previous speakers and to convey to Admiral Biermann my congratulations and those of my constituency on his very special promofor a considerable time. We are privileged tion. Every one of us has the utmost confidence in him. Most of us have known him to have in this man and his wife two dignitaries who will truly be able to occupy their high positions with dignity and distinction. On behalf of my constituency I should like to wish them a very long period of service and may their road which lies ahead be a smooth one and not become too bumpy.

Another heartfelt need I have is to express to the hon. the Minister and his department my appreciation of the wonderful work done at the Danie Theron military school in respect of the restoration and conversion of the old Alexanderfontein Hotel. It is a place which is very rich in history. In pursuance of the many anecdotes I have heard from older people. I have often thought that it would probably be very interesting if one could find someone who might have the necessary information to record the history of that special place for us with reference to the restoration of the hotel. Some of us know it to some extent and others may hardly be aware of its existence. That is where there were diamonds in abundance. They made that area gleam and there was money in abundance as well as other things. In contrast to the stormy days that old place saw, we have discipline and order today. What I am particularly pleased about is that the restoration actually served three purposes. In the first place, that historical building was preserved, I believe, for posterity. It was converted into the Jack Hinden officers’ mess. I hope I am not wrong and the hon. the Minster will probably tell me whether or not I am. In the second place it serves a special purpose. There were times at the commencement of that work when particularly comfortable accommodation was not available for the officers. For that reason we are particularly grateful because this building again is in a position today to occupy a very worthy place and play a role ini the lives of our men of the Defence Force.

I just want to express another idea here which is constantly in my mind, and that is that we must get away from the idea that our Defence Force exists solely for safeguarding our individual and joint lives and to protect them against onsloughts on the borders of our country or merely to protect our material possessions. To me it really goes further than that. The way I want to express this is to say that if one has a strong Defence Force, one which is worth its salt and which demands respect, it may also serve as a means of making the enemy keep its distance. In that case the enemy will not readily take up arms against one. However, a strong Defence Force also promotes a strong economy. The economy is promoted to a very large extent through trade and negotiation with other countries outside a country’s borders. A country’s growth is not derived solely from within that country itself but also from its trade with other countries. Through that a country grows strong and through that the world becomes aware of the economic strength of a country. That causes other countries to look at one’s country with eager eyes and ardent desire. But such a country will not readily take up arms against one when it knows that one has a strong Defence Force. I think it is definitely worthwhile to inculcate this idea in all our people.

In conclusion I should like to express my appreciation of the particularly fine spirit which has prevailed in this debate up to this stage. I want to agree with the hon. member for East London North that when one is discussing an important matter such as this and when there is so much at stake, one has to do so calmly and dispassionately.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the other hon. members on this side of the House in extending my congratulations to Admiral Biermann on his promotion to this very, very high rank. I feel that the experience Admiral Biermann will bring to bear in this position will bear fruit and I feel sure that he will not fail South Africa. I have great confidence in his future as chief of our forces in this country.

The hon. member for Durban Point has pointed out to us here the serious position that we face in our country today on our borders. We are told that the position is not going to improve, but rather escalate over the years. It is a position that we in South Africa have to take note of. One listens to the radio and reads the papers, and one is disappointed to find that countries overseas, which are probably very ill-informed, are lending support to so-called “freedom fighters” and so-called “oppressed people” on our borders. One wonders whether they really know what they are doing. But we are also faced with inroads from Communist China and the infiltration of Russia in their very subtle way of peaceful penetration. These things we have to face in this country of ours. Therefore, it is necessary for us to be prepared.

We are apt to think lightly of the “bright side” of war. Of course we all know, those of us who have had the experience, that war is a complete waste in every way. The money you spend on war machines and war products is really unproductive; but it is an insurance policy as far as a country is concerned, and the responsibility is upon us to produce the best fighting force that we can put in the field. Coming to that, one looks at the Estimates. I want to refer to the provision made here for mechanical transport. We find that a substantial amount, nearly R5 million, is going to be spent. Over R5 million was spent last year on mechanical transport. We find that the very substantial amount of R2144 000 has to be spent on motor spares in order to maintain this transport. Then we find under sub-head R—Contribution to Defence Special Equipment Account, that an amount of R3 787 000 is going to be spent on technical and fighting vehicles.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.