I move—

Mr. Speaker, apart from the taxation proposals, we are only effecting one amendment to the Excise Act which is of importance. I am referring to the provision that the Commissioner, where circumstances justify it, may grant an extension of payment of excise duty. The fact that there is no such provision in the Excise Act makes it very difficult to administer the Act. In order to afford the public the necessary relief in deserving cases, we are now inserting such a provision. The Customs Act already contains a corresponding provision and the provision in this Bill has been taken over word for word as far as possible from the Customs Act. As in the case of the customs provision, provision is also made that all exciseable goods or instruments for the manufacture of exciseable goods in possession of or under the control of the debtor shall be subject to a lien until the amount due has been paid. The object of this safeguard, of course, is to do away with the necessity of providing any bond or other form of security.

We support the second reading of this Bill. Most of our criticisms on the various items raised under this Bill were advanced during the Committee Stage of Ways and Means and we do not propose to add anything further to the objections which we raised during that stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedules and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is a very short Bill. It is intended mainly to give effect to the taxation proposals which were fully discussed in Committee of Ways and Means. I do not propose to say more about them except to repeat that the Bill contains exemptions in respect of books which were announced in the amending notice of the taxation proposals on 21 May. The exemptions in respect of certain approved religious magazines, educational readers and books which have also been published in hard covers, will be contained in Government Notices which will be published on the same date as the amending Act. The Bill also contains certain other amendments which are of minor importance. These amendments are explained in notes which I have given to hon. members interested on both sides of the House. They are mostly of an administrative nature. If hon. members should like some more information regarding any of these amendments I shall be pleased to explain them.

We do not object to the second reading of this Bill. We would reiterate the remarks made during the Committee Stage of Ways and Means when we took exception to the increase of certain tariffs, increases which were not recommended by the Board of Trade. We feel that when the Board of Trade makes a recommendation and the Bill provides for increases in excess of those recommended by the Board of Trade or increases contrary to the recommendations of the Board of Trade, we should voice our protest. It is significant at a time when the Minister of Economic Affairs is overseas to see what he can save from the European Common Market, we should be increasing tariffs. As the Minister well knows the European Common Market is concerned with lowering the tariff walls and here we are increasing the tariff walls, and increasing them to an extent beyond that recommended by the Board of Trade. We feel that our protests against these increases should go on record. These increases will have the effect of increasing costs and the burden will fall on the worker and the man in the street who can ill afford to carry it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) in regard to the increase in duties particularly in regard to those items which are not available from South African manufacturers. I think there is no argument about it and both sides of the House are fully agreed that where goods are manufactured in South Africa there should be protection. But there are items on which duties have been increased which are not available. Thereby it becomes a pure taxation measure, a pure means of raising revenue, at the expense of increasing the cost of living. Particularly for the poorer people of South Africa, who have to make their own clothing, many of these duties which have been increased of late, can have a serious effect on their cost of living. I have taken out a list at random of items which have gone up from 30 per cent to 40 per cent over the last week. In the case of one item costing 1s. 1d. at the factory an increase of 40 per cent will mean that it will now cost 35c wholesale whereas its price used to be 27c. A cotton mixture poplin which used to be 36c will now be 49c. These are increases which affect particularly the mothers of children, the mothers who have to make the clothes for those children. These are basic staple materials. School spun has gone up from 50c to 60c per yard. This is necessary for the making of most girls’ dresses for school. So I can list item by item. These are not items which are available from any South African source. They are not luxury items; they are essential items, essential for the average and lower income wage-earning families. I feel it would be wrong to allow this measure to pass without placing on record our concern that blanket increases are being imposed without regard to availability in South Africa and without regard to the effect on the cost of living.

There is one other point, Mr. Speaker, and that is the question—it could fall within the terms of this Bill—of goods at sea, goods already ordered—goods which were already ordered at the time the increase was imposed. There are many small firms which are often almost crippled by being caught with consignments at sea. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, although this matter has been considered before, he will not reconsider the question of whether goods in transit should not fall under these increases. They were bought at an expected price and at an expected landing cost and the increased duty will now have to be paid on them. In many cases this amounts to an amount which cannot be afforded by the importer. I hope the Minister will give us some information in regard to his attitude to that matter.

In regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell), I may say that it is quite true that all the increases in tariffs which we have here, were not recommended by the Board of Trade. But increases in tariffs are not merely for protective purposes. There are two other purposes which are no concern of the Board of Trade. The first is the question of revenue and the second is the question of the saving of currency on unnecessary imports. Those are matters which belong to the Treasury. The Board of Trade is not concerned there. There are also many exemptions and rebates granted in the Second and Third Schedules which in some cases were not made on the recommendation of the Board of Trade. There is one case which I know of in this Bill where actually the Board of Trade and the Department of Economic Affairs were not in agreement. We considered the matter on its merits and we decided that the case of the Department of Economic Affairs was very strong. We then acted against the recommendation of the Board of Trade. That is one case in which it was a question of protection.

As I have said the Bill contains many clauses which give concessions. Schedules Two and Three contain concessions; either industrial rebates in Schedule Two or general rebates in Schedule Three. We cannot be guided solely by what the Board of Trade have to say on these matters. There is the question of currency which is a Treasury matter.

May I ask the Minister a question? Isn’t the question of the saving of currency a matter which can be dealt with under import controls rathers than by increasing tariffs?

No, not necessarily. As a matter of fact, I think if you want to save currency, it is sounder to do it by tariffs than by import control. But you can do it either way. It is a question of taste. I think the better way is to do it by tariffs. Anyway, where we had to increase tariffs we saw to it that it was only on the more expensive type of article. Even if it is not made here, we say we do not want that imported. If it is made here, of course, then there is very good justification. Even if it is not made here, if it is a luxury article, an article on which the imports are of a luxury nature such as fancy combs, etc., we frame the duty in such a way that it will not catch the ordinary product but only the luxury type of the same kind. That is generally the pattern which we have followed here.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) asked me about consignments in transit. That is a matter which we have thrashed out before. When you have to impose duties it is simply impossible to say that there will be exemptions in the case of goods in transit. From an administrative point of view that is very difficult to control. The whole substance of import duties is that it should be made effective from a certain date, usually the date of the Budget. You cannot have another date to cover the date of dispatch of the goods. On the other hand, I have to point out to the hon. member that is not always against the importer. If during the Budget speech or during the Budget debate certain concessions are granted, whether by way of exemptions or by way of rebates, even if the goods are already on the way to South Africa the importers get the advantage of that. So when there is a disadvantage they must also take that.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses of the Bill put and agreed to.

On the First Schedule,

I would like some clarity from the Minister in regard to Item 284. I do not want to repeat the arguments I submitted to the Minister in regard to this tax in the Committee of Ways and Means, but I would like to get some clarity from him in respect of one statement he made, that he proposes to give certain exemptions in respect of certain types of literature published in paper-back form. The Minister said in his speech that he would in the Third Schedule indicate the nature of the rebate and the exemption that would be granted, but I understand now that the Minister, in terms of the original Act, has the power to add to the Third Schedule by proclamation in the Gazette, in terms of Section 100 of the principal Act. I would like to ask the Minister whether he can give an indication now as to the nature and the form of the exemption which will be granted in respect of the type of paper-back he referred to, which could come in duty free if it had formerly been published in hard-cover form.

Then there is another matter which I think the Minister did not consider in attempting to justify the tax in the Committee of Ways and Means. I would like to refer the Minister to Government Gazette 8 December 1961, which lists items for which an import permit must be obtained, and certain exemptions are stated where import permits will not be granted, and one of them is the type of books and publications listed in Item 284 here. The Minister has said that one of the reasons for the tax is to apply a form of censorship and restrictive measures on the importation of trash. But I want to put to him that in Item 284, it states quite clearly in this Government Notice, that books and printed music, newspapers and periodicals are included, but excluding the following, which includes all unauthorized prints of any copyright works the importation of which is prohibited, magazines and periodical publications of a class or kind embracing science fiction, fantastic stories, detective stories, sex, westerns, love, and true confession stories and similar publications, publications commonly known as comics, publications which present the narrative mainly in pictorial form and back numbers of magazines and periodical publications of whatsoever nature shipped on a date more than two months from the date of issue. This is in the Government Gazette 8 December, Item 284. Paragraph 1 says that the following groups are hereby exempted from the provisions of the Government Notice and may be imported into the Republic of South Africa from any country without an import permit, and it states what may be imported without import permit, namely books, printed music and newspapers and periodicals.

That has nothing to do with the rebate.

Yes, it has, in this sense, that what I have read out here are the exempted items which fall into the broad category which the Minister may not tax.

They could be imported. It has nothing to do with the duty.

They cannot be imported. That is the point. That is why I draw the Minister’s attention to this, for this reason, that the Minister seeks to apply this tax as a means of restricting the entry of certain publications, as a form of censorship in respect of certain types of literature, and not merely as a means of raising revenue. I want clarity from the Minister. Either this tax is imposed as a means of raising revenue or as a means of censorship, and we have had no clarity on that at all. As we stated, we are opposed to the principle of taxing literature.

Order! That is not an argument for the Committee Stage.

But we are asked to approve this tax.

You ought to have said that in the second reading. That is when the principle can be attacked.

But we are surely entitled to move the deletion of this item. We are asked to approve this tax and I take it I can state reasons why I do not think it can be imposed. But I have stated these reasons before and I do not wish to repeat them.

The question of censorship has nothing to do with this item.

Then let me put it this way. If this type of literature which the Minister taxes to raise revenue is already under import control and the importation is virtually restricted and it cannot be imported without a permit, then what is the object of imposing a tax of this nature from a revenue-earning point of view? How much revenue can be derived from it? That is why I raise the matter to get clarity from the Minister.

While I am on my feet, may I point out to the Minister that under Item D it says soft-covered fiction books and booklets not being books in leather covers, and under 2 (a) it says periodicals, fiction consisting predominantly of a single complete novel or story in a single issue. Those two items are taxed. The rest are exempted, it clearly states in this notice that in respect of certain types listed by the Minister, which he now wants to tax, that that type of literature cannot be brought in without an import permit. May I point out that in many cases import permits are not granted unless the Department of Education has approved of the articles as being a suitable type of publication to be imported. But if the publication consists predominantly of one story, then in terms of this item it must be taxed. The effect is that many of those publications are not imported unless there has been prior approval by the Department of Education. I put this to the Minister: Why tax it as a means of restriction, or of raising revenue, because in principle it is a bad tax and one which can cause a great deal of harm. What we are asked to do here is to approve of a tax which may be greatly extended in future.

In the Committee of Ways and Means we objected to this item in principle and we propose to continue our objection because we think the principle is unsound, even though the tax may be for revenue-raising purposes, and I therefore move—

In regard to Item 284, I want to make a few remarks. Apparently there is not much clarity, or a superabundance of it, on the other side in regard to the matter. The position is this. The point put by the hon. member for Turffontein is that there is an import ban on certain of these soft-cover books, and what is the use of taxing them because there will not be anything to tax? That is how I understood his argument.

Of this undesirable nature.

There will not be anything to tax, because all the types of books I said should be taxed cannot be imported. Well, the answer is quite simple. The import control may be removed tomorrow. I do not know whether the import control is as wide as the articles which I want to tax within the taxation net and therefore I have to take these measures that I am taking here. I want to make it clear that if the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown is adopted and Item 284 is deleted, it might mean that all the goods mentioned in Item 284 will now become dutiable under Item 335, at 20 per cent ad valorem. So I do not know whether the hon. member has considered that possibility.

Do you suggest that it will be, or that it may be?

I say that if Item 284 is deleted, these goods will become dutiable under Item 335. The hon. member shakes his head, but that is what I am instructed is the position by people who know more about it than I do.

The other point I wanted to make is this. I do not want to discuss the principle, whether this impost is one for the protection of morals or to protect foreign currency or simply for revenue-earning purposes. I have already explained that. We are not imposing a ban. It can be imported, but when it is imported, a certain type of soft-cover novel should at least make a contribution to the Treasury. We say that is the type of thing on which we can save foreign currency, because it is an unnecessary importation, and if we cannot stop it completely by the tax we can at any rate make them contribute to the coffers of the country. That is our attitude and I do not want to go into it further, because it is not really relevant to this discussion.

I said that there is a lot of misunderstanding in regard to what I said in the Committee of Ways and Means, in regard to what I said I proposed doing. I have already explained that there are two broad categories of books which are not in the exemptions in the item but which will be introduced in the Third Schedule as a rebate—not as an exemption but as a rebate. Hon. members will know that Schedule 1 deals with tariffs, with duties payable. Schedule 2 deals with industrial rebates, and Schedule 3 deals with general rebates. So in Item 284 in the First Schedule we impose a duty with certain exemptions, and then in the Third Schedule we will introduce a rebate on two broad classes of books, namely series of religious books and educational readers, and secondly books which have already appeared in hard-cover form. That will be done by proclamation, and when it is proclaimed, the hon. member will see in this Bill we have all the proclamations made in the course of the year. They are now embodied in this Bill. This proclamation which I am now issuing after the Committee of Ways and Means—we could not introduce it there because it was a technical matter and we were not ready to draft it yet—but this will now appear in next year’s Customs Act as part of the Third Schedule, but in the meantime it has the effect of law, just like all the others which are now formally approved and in respect of which proclamations have been issued from time to time, some almost a year ago. The position is now that from 21 March, when I made that statement in my Budget speech, all these soft-cover books were dutiable until 23 May, when there was the amended proposal in the Committee of Ways and Means. From that date only those which were not exempted were dutiable. From the date when this proclamation appears there will be these rebates, a third class, and they will be able to get a rebate if they are imported in future, but in the meantime, from 21 March, many of these books which will in future carry no duty, if they were cleared in the meantime, would have carried duty. But the point is that in future when this proclamation is issued—and it will be issued simultaneously with the promulgation of this Act—provision will be made for what I have said here, namely for these two broad classes of books. There will naturally also be provisions as to under what circumstances the rebate will be granted. I think that will appear in the proclamation also. For instance, the rebate can be granted provided (a) evidence to the above effect is submitted to the proper officer on demand, (b) a certificate signed by the publisher of such soft-cover book is produced to the officer in respect of every consignment of such books, (c) such book is not packed or enclosed with any other books not entitled to this rebate, and (d) a package or parcel containing such soft-cover books imported by post is clearly marked as to its contents. Something on these lines will be incorporated in the proclamations. It will not be an exemption, but a rebate. It would be dutiable ordinarily, but in terms of this proclamation the whole duty may be rebated—not a part of it only, but the whole duty, and it will then come in free of tax. I want to say again that this step we have taken on those two big categories removes the points which worried the book trade also, and the Book Trade Association of South Africa have helped us in framing this distinction. They admitted that the “Library Series” was one of the most dangerous series and the most unnecessary to import, and the most clear example of an unnecessary wastage of foreign currency. But they also said that there was a counterpart to that series in a religious library series, which one would like to exclude if we could find a formula for doing it. In regard to (b), i.e. books which have appeared in hard covers, the final draft is not ready yet, but it will be published in the Government Gazette amending the Third Schedule to the Customs Act, as the Minister is empowered to do by Section 100 of that Act. It is intended to provide for the rebate of the whole duty on any soft-cover fiction book being an abridged or unabridged version of any book published for unrestricted sales in hard covers at the same time in the same language by any publisher in the country of export. Both these notices, in regard to the religious series and the educational series, and the one in regard to hard covers, will become operative on the date of the promulgation of the Amendment Act.

I have considered the Minister’s reply, and there is the possibility that Item 335, which is the general item, could have the effect of imposing a duty on all books, but with the leave of the House I will withdraw my amendment and I wish to substitute the amendment which meets the case.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment was withdrawn.

I now move—

I move this amendment, which has the effect of withdrawing the 5c duty, because we are opposed to the principle.

We made our point of view quite clear when we discussed ways and means. It should be unnecessary to add anything to that. Now the Minister says there is not a superabundance of clarity on this side of the House. There is certainly not a superabundance of understanding on the part of the Minister, and certainly no great generosity on his part. We put the position quite clearly, but now we are faced with the threat that should we persist in our original amendment and point of view, it might mean that under Item 335 worse things might befall us.

That was not a threat.

Now the hon. member for Pinetown has met that situation. We have explained that this tax on literature is absolutely unnecessary, not because it may mean the thin end of the wedge, but because it is not intelligent taxation. It involves censorship, to begin with. The book has to be described under 1 (d), where we have the 5c tax. Here we are asked not to define the book but to define the exemptions, and surely that is not good taxation, to define the exemptions to any tax but not the article that is taxed? I mentioned earlier that only English language hooks are concerned. If the Minister wishes to tax trash, then tax all trash in the country, whether it comes in or whether it is produced “here because, believe me, there is plenty of trash produced in this country in Afrikaans and in English.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

We object very strongly to this tax and we will persist in our objections as long as we can.

I wish to come back to the remarks of the Minister in regard to the rebates that he will now give under this tax in regard to certain classes of literature. The Minister has made it clear that in regard to educational and religious books there is no difficulty. They will not be taxed and will get the rebate when they are imported. But in respect of the second class, fiction published in paper-back form, fiction is not necessarily of a western nature; it can be of a classical nature. All that will be subject to taxation. The Minister is going to give one rebate, namely that if any of those books have formerly been published with a hard cover, then on the certificate of the publisher or importer he will give a rebate. What will happen in fact? In the first place, the publisher importing books has to make a declaration that that particular publication was originally published in hard-cover form. The Minister therefore says that merely by virtue of the fact that a book has been published with a hard cover it can come in duty free. I want to put this to the Minister. There are books written in fiction, of a classical nature, which have never been published with a hard cover. On those books a duty will have to be paid, but a book which is sheer rubbish but which has been published with a hard cover can come in duty free. How is the importer going to know, when he gets offered a number of titles, whether they have been published in hardcover form or not? He will have to have an investigation carried out overseas to show that it has been published with a hard cover. But if a particularly good piece of literature originated abroad in paper-back form, because that is the modern trend in publishing, it is taxed, but a piece of rubbish, even of pornographic nature, can come in duty free because it was originally published in a hard cover. In fact, the Minister is placing a premium on trash because it will now pay any publisher to import any trash if he can merely prove that it was published in a hard cover. But the position will be even more ludicrous. The Minister challenged me in ways and means and said that the greater bulk of this type of literature comes in through the Dost, but what will we have now? The publisher who can certify that the book was published in hard-cover form brings in the publication free of duty, but the thousands of citizens who join book clubs and get books from overseas will have to pay a higher duty than the man who buys it in South Africa from the publisher, merely because the publisher certifies that it was published in a hard cover. How is the ordinary individual to know this? So all you will have is a discriminatory tax where certain persons will be paying a higher price for the same thing than others. If you examine the difficulties connected with this type of tax, you run into a ludicrous situation because the Minister will have endless trouble and there will be the application of a discriminatory tax on literature.

But there is still another aspect. On the Continent in France, Germany, Holland and Italy and many other countries, the majority of publications never appear in hard-cover form, but in paper-back form. The effect is there are many world-famous writers whom I could name whose books are not published in hardcover form and therefore anybody wishing to purchase them in South Africa has to pay a tax. Is that fair and reasonable? I mention this to the Minister because in terms of the description he has read out here—and I can assure the Minister that there is consternation in the book trade about this definition. The feeling is that if the Minister wants to give a rebate of this nature, the fairest way to do it would be to say that if a book had formerly been published and sold at a certain price it will be exempted. By far the fairest way to determine this would be to say that books published abroad at a retail figure of, say 10s., 11s. or 12s., will then get the rebate exemption that the hon. the Minister wishes to grant in respect of this taxation. If the Minister would like examples of high-quality literature in paper-back form which has never been printed in hard-cover form but which in fact would retail in this country at 7s., 8s. or 9s. I would be very happy to submit to the Minister many examples of that type of literature. But in fact because they have never been published in hard-cover form, their price will now be loaded as far as the reading public of South Africa is concerned, merely by virtue of the fact that they have never been published in a hard cover. The fact that the Minister has had to make all these exemptions and allow for rebates that he is going to grant, clearly indicates that the revenue which this tax was originally designed to produce—and the Minister has admitted that this tax was conceived as a means of censorship, not as a means of raising revenue; the Minister’s Budget statement is absolutely clear in that regard …

Order! The hon. member cannot go into the question of censorship now.

I mention that merely to indicate to the Minister that all this manoeuvring that he has embarked upon with his officials is merely the result of attempting to apply in principle what in essence is a bad tax.

Question put: That the figure “5”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the tariff item.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—79: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha. S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser. P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—48: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock. H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss. U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

First Schedule, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining Schedules and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I feel that this Bill is aimed at giving control over the supply of liquor to the Coloureds in their own areas, but it also does other things as well. It increases the facilities for Coloured to obtain liquor in their own areas, and it also takes liquor nearer to their homes. I think everyone who knows the Western Province realizes that there is a pattern at the present time by which the liquor licence houses, particularly those supplying the Coloureds, are centred at certain points, usually strategic points, at which they catch the Coloureds as they come from their work over the week-end and get their money away from them before they are able to get to their homes and hand it over to their wives to buy bread and clothing for their children. The effect of this Bill will be to take the liquor nearer to those homes. In recent years, especially now with the development of new Coloured areas, the Coloureds have been developing some very beautiful suburbs and some very beautiful homes and large numbers of them take pride in those homes. What I am concerned about is this: This Bill makes provision for the issuing of licences—how licences may be issued to Coloureds in their own areas—but I cannot see in the Bill any means whereby objections can be lodged by those in those areas who do not want licences issued in their areas. I can quite picture a certain number—ten or a dozen Coloureds—thinking that they can make some money in a Coloured area, following the correct procedure and succeeding in having a licence granted for that particular area, but the people in those areas may not want their homes to be nearer to these licensed premises. I think anyone who knows the Western Province will realize that it would be surprising if Coloured children brought up in those areas where you have a concentration of these liquor licences, turned out other than juvenile deliquents as they grew up, because the whole atmosphere in those areas on a Friday afternoon and Saturday morning is certainly not the sort of atmosphere which anyone in this House would like to have near his home. I know for certain that there are large numbers of Coloured people who do not want those licensed premises to be near to their homes. I should like therefore to know from the Minister whether the fact that no provision is made in this Bill for the procedure to be followed by those who do not want licences to be issued in those areas to lodge their objection, means that they are debarred from making any such objection or whether one can take it for granted that the normal procedures under the existing Liquor Act are sufficient to provide procedures by which they can object if they wish to do so.

In the first instance, I wish to express my gratitude to hon. members on both sides of the House for the way in which this Bill has been received and the way in which it has been discussed. I am saying this particularly in respect of the main speaker on that side, the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). I think the way in which the hon. member has approached the Bill and the views he has expressed on this Bill, have greatly contributed to maintaining the level of this discussion and I wish to express my gratitude to the hon. member for the attitude he has adopted.

I now wish to reply to the arguments which the hon. member has advanced in a very reasonable manner. In the first instance the hon. member argued that it was somewhat unreasonable that a Coloured person had to pay R150 for a licence in this case whereas we demanded a much higher amount, namely R10,000 from the White person. I think the hon. member will agree with me when I say, in the first instance, that there is, of course, a very big difference between the capital resources of the two groups, and in the second instance, the hon. member will also admit that in the case of the Whites this is an amount which once having paid it, makes it worth their while because it ensures a monopoly to them for many years as it were. The hon. member also knows that it was mainly in respect of the large centres that this amount had to be paid. I think that this amount which they have paid has been justified over and over again by the profits they have made. The hon. member will also remember that in that connection it was mainly limited to such areas as Johannesburg, Germiston and other large towns in the Transvaal. In that connection the hon. member will also remember that the Coloureds there have never yet had the right to purchase liquor as they have in the Western Province. In other words, if we grant liquor licences to the Coloureds in their own areas, we are not depriving the White trader of anything which he had formerly—because they could only obtain it by way of a permit—but we are giving an additional right to the Coloured people, a right which they have never had before and consequently we are not causing any damages to the Whites in this connection. I am grateful to the hon. member for agreeing with us that it would have been wrong in principle had we adopted the attitude that only the Whites could have a monopoly in the liquor trade. In this connection I wish to express my gratitude to members on both sides of the House. I do not think we can adopt that attitude and I am very grateful that not a single member has adopted that attitude.

That brings me at once to the objection raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) who has just spoken. The hon. member asked me whether people could still object. My reply is that people can still object, if not more so than in the past because these objections can now be lodged with the National Liquor Board, which is one body, instead of raising them at the various liquor licensing courts, as was the position in the past. I am convinced, as I said in my second reading speech, that because we intend granting these licences as provided for in the Act, you will no longer have mere drinking places in the ordinary sense of the word, as you indeed have them here and there to-day where the Coloureds have to buy their liquor, but that they will be more dignified places where food will be provided under hygienic and decent conditions. As a result fewer evils will result than would otherwise have been the case. The hon. member also referred to the atmosphere. A much better atmosphere will prevail than in the past.

If I may return to the hon. member for Durban (Point), Sir, I wish to say to him that on a previous occasion I granted an interview to the advocates of the following associations: The Western Province Bottle Storekeepers and Off-sale Licences Association and the Cape Licensed Victuallers and Hotelkeepers. I had previously granted an interview to their advocates and in spite of the limited time at my disposal I also once again met their advocate, attorney and I think six of their members yesterday. I discussed this Bill with them and listened to their objections and I think I can say to the House, that as far as the broad principles are concerned, we fully understand each other. Those bodies informed me that as far as the principle was concerned, they had no objection to the Bill. They asked me for assurances in regard to objections similar to those raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point). Inter alia. I gave them the positive assurance that in no circumstances would the Government lay down a cheaper price for liquor in the Coloured areas than the price which obtains to-day in the White areas. In other words, as far as it is within my power to prevent it, there will be no difference in the price. Hon. members who are acquainted with the liquor trade will know, of course, that that is not always within my power and that there are many wheels within wheels in the liquor trade. In other words, we will not cut the throats of existing licensees by allowing anything like that, as far as it is within our power to do so. I also want to state very clearly to hon. members that the general policy is—and I do not think anybody will find fault with it—apart from those people who have rights within the half-mile limit, not to allow any further movements within that half-mile area. When I had discussions with the Coloured people they expressed their appreciation of the attitude that no further White licences will be issued in those areas; and because they appreciate that; they are also pleased about it that as far as practically possible, Coloured licences must not encroach on that half-mile area either, thus coming into unfair competition with the White licensees. In other words, the Coloureds have asked us to apply the same yardstick to them which we are applying to the Whites, because they do not want to use their situation to do business in unfair competition with existing White licence holders. I think that is a reasonable attitude. Just as you cannot apply it in the case of White licences, you will, of course, not be able always to apply it in the case of Coloured licences because if the Coloured area, for example, is only half a mile wide you will naturally find yourself in a position where you will of necessity have to cross the border in places, but those will be the exceptions. I will request the board that where that is the position it should not grant authorities if it would place the licence holder in direct competition with existing White licensees who have already acquired vested rights in that area; in other words, to keep the licences as far apart from one another as practically possible. As a matter of fact, that is also how the Coloureds see the position. Both the hon. member and the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) referred to the use of the word “association” in this connection. I do not think that can give rise to any problem because it has been taken over from Section 67 of the old Liquor Act and consequently I do not think there will be any difficulty in that connection. I want to say clearly to the hon. member for Durban (Point)—I will move an amendment to this effect in the Committee Stage to-morrow—that where we talk of an association of Coloured people or an association of Indian, there is no doubt about it whatsoever—and I am sorry if this Bill has perhaps given rise to such a doubt and that is why I will put it right in the Committee Stage—that no White person can obtain an interest in it; in other words, that association, whether it is in the form of a company or in any other form, must in any case consist of Coloureds or Asiatics; the people who are concerned, the shareholders and partners, etc. must belong to that group. But apart from the provisions of this Bill, in terms of the Group Areas Act it is impossible for Whites to acquire an interest in that association. The law provides that if, contrary to the provisions of this Act, it nevertheless appears that White people circumvent the law in some way or other or find loopholes and acquire an interest in such an association, that authority can be cancelled and I wish to give hon. members the assurance that I will not hesitate to cancel that authority if anything like that should happen.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question in connection with the number of ten who comprise an association; will it be possible for, say, five or six Coloureds or Asiatics to form an association or must there be ten?

As the Act reads at the moment there must be ten. I have already explained that we are doing that at the request of the three groups of Coloured people with whom I have had discussions. I have also explained to hon. members that we are joining the on-consumption and off-consumption rights with the exception of the one which we have in sub-section (12) namely, the one which already exists, the one who already has vested rights. In the circumstances which I put to the House in the course of my second reading debate, it will not be reasonable, while the building in respect of which the licence is held does not allow it, to impose further requirements in that licence under which vested rights have already been obtained. The question has been put to me: What about existing hotels where certain White persons have taken the risk of providing certain hotel facilities to Coloured which they had no right to provide and who are rendering a very good service to the Coloured community. It is obvious that those people were not imbued with philanthropical ideas; they entered that field because they felt that it would be worth their while to do so. Nevertheless, they risked their capital, they went there and they acquired vested rights. I want to say clearly that the idea is not to kill those hotels to-morrow or the day after. I think we must gradually—and when I say gradually I mean over the course of a number of years, say ten, or so—make these people realize that it will be to their benefit to make over their interests to Coloureds as that becomes possible. As a matter of fact, I think those people themselves will come to realize that. I want to assure members that we will not force them in any way or try to kill them off by means of this legislation. We realize that they are rendering a service. I appeal to them, however, to realize that it will be to their own advantage gradually to make over their interests to Coloureds when and if Coloureds come forward who are prepared to undertake that service.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) asked me a question in connection with the areas which fall under the Mission Reserves Act. In this connection the Minister of Coloured Affairs has assured me that it is his intention to introduce legislation in this connection—if possible next year. He has given me that assurance and I leave it at that. The hon. member as well as the hon. member for Germiston (District) asked me whether these grants would be taken into account when it came to determining quotas. My reply to that is that they will not be taken into account. These authorities are not granted in terms of the Act but by the Minister on the recommendation of the National Liquor Board. Subject to what hon. members may decide next year under the Liquor Bill, the quota provisions will not apply here.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) also wanted to know whether White licensees would still be able to deliver liquor in Coloured areas and vice versa. My reply is that Whites will still be able to deliver in Coloured areas and Coloureds will still be able to deliver in White areas. It is only the establishment of businesses by the one group in the area of the other which is affected here.

I have noted the attitude of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). Although I do not agree with it, I can nevertheless appreciate it. The hon. member for Durban (Point) raised the question of compulsory beer stocks. I think the hon. member for Hercules (Prof. Malan) who knows more about this matter than I do, has already effectively disposed of that matter. I am definitely of the opinion that where we have accepted that principle in respect of wine and brandy it would not be wrong to apply it in the case of beer as well. It is right that we encourage competition in this way because competition, particularly in the liquor trade, is welcome. It will be an evil day in this country when any group—I am not accusing anyone—acquires a monopoly in the liquor trade because we know the power which such a group can exercise. I readily concede the point to the hon. member that it may be argued that in this way we are making it possible for a company to exist which would otherwise have found it impossible to exist. That is an argument which I have to face up to. I do not think, however, that it is unreasonable, particularly not when we weigh the one against the other. While I appreciate the hon. member’s attitude, therefore, I cannot subscribe to it and we will just have to continue to differ on this point. As I have already said I think the relevant provision in the Bill is a reasonable provision.

In this connection I might just add that the people with whom I discussed this matter, did not express any strong views on the subject. Nor has the interested company—a company which, as the hon. member for Hercules has said, has rendered great services to South Africa—made any representations to me in this connection. I take it that they think they are capable of facing up to any competition.

Did you not receive a memorandum from the company?

No such memorandum has come to my notice. My office may have received one, but unfortunately it has not come to my notice. However, even if they did take a stand, I think that it is not unreasonable to demand that three out of four types of beer should be made available, particularly when you bear in mind the way in which it has to be made available and also when you bear in mind the concession which we have made by substituting the very strict provision in the old Act—strict because he could lose his licence—with a penalty provision. Hon. members said they thought the penalty was too severe, but I wish to point out that it is similar to other penalties in the law. Nothing more has been done than to bring it into line with existing penalty provisions.

I should like to ask the Minister a question. In reply to a previous question of mine, the Minister said that the National Liquor Board would be the body which would make a recommendation whether a licence should be granted or not. He said that that Board was the more appropriate body for that than the local liquor licensing boards. To the best of my recollection, up to some five years ago the members of these local liquor boards were selected by democratic process …

Order! The hon. member’s question is a very long one!

I am leading up to my question, Sir. I should like to know whether it would not be more in line with the principles of this Bill if the Coloureds were to …

Order! The hon. member is making a speech now and he is not permitted to do that at this stage.

I am aware of what the hon. member wants, Mr. Speaker. I want to inform him that local liquor licensing boards are not appointed on a democratic basis. No elections are held for the appointment of members to those boards. On the contrary, they were always appointed by the Minister—some from the personnel of local authorities and others from amongst members of the public. If these were to be elected, I am afraid there would be such a rush that anyone would have been unable to cope with it. The hon. member will also recollect that a few years ago this House decided on another procedure, i.e. that only three magistrates would in future constitute those boards. Under this Bill, six persons will be appointed by the Minister. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that this board will be prepared to receive and consider representations at all times. I have appeared before liquor boards on many occasions and so have other members in this House who are attorneys and advocates. We know that when in the olden days objections were lodged, counsel had the right to speak against those objections. Although this right will not exist under this Bill, the board will view any objections and representations objectively and take account of them.

Will there be any Coloureds on that board?

No. This board has already been constituted under previous Acts.

Will it not be more in keeping with the principles of this Act for Coloureds to serve on the board for the purpose of deciding on the granting of licences under this Bill?

That was duly considered. It was, however, not considered advisable to do so.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As is generally known there has been great expansion in the defence organization of the Republic since the acceptance of the Defence Act, 1957 (Act No. 44 of 1957), and it is, therefore, necessary for amendments to be made from time to time to ensure that the organization runs smoothly, and to eliminate defects.

The Bill before the House contains two as I believe non-contentious amendments which are recommended for consideration as well as a third clause which, although it does not affect the Act as such, is submitted to validate certain overpayments as the matter cannot be disposed of in terms of existing provisions.

In connection with the first clause I wish to inform the House that many artisans leave the South African Defence Force after having completed their apprenticeships and before the expiration of the periods for which they have signed on. Their services are then lost to the Department.

The South African Defence Force is a very popular recruiting field for skilled artisans who, because of their high standard of training, are in great demand by commercial and industrial undertakings.

Loss of skilled artisans takes place at such a rate that it has an adverse effect on the activities of the Department especially in the case of specialized equipment already in use or which is in the process of being acquired.

It costs my Department approximately R7,300 to train an artisan apprentice over a period of four years and it is, therefore, necessary in view of what I have just stated, to curtail to some extent the outflow of skilled artisans to civil life.

In terms of the existing Section 52, members of the Reserve of Officers of the Citizen Force can be compelled to render service only during war-time or internal disorders or when a state of emergency exists. There is, however, no provision in terms of which former members of the Permanent Force, and who are on the Reserve, can be called up for duty during peace-time.

The proposal, therefore, is to amend the Act as indicated in Clause 1 on the Bill by the addition of the two new sections, viz. 5bis and 5ter, to Section 52 which, Sir, will have the effect that a former member of the Permanent Force who is on the Reserve will be liable for service during peace-time for not more than one period of 30 days in each of the six years following the year in which he so obtained his discharge, provided that the number of such periods do not exceed the number of months by which the date of his discharge preceded the expiry date of his period of service in the Permanent Force and which, all told, do not exceed six periods.

Mr. Speaker, to elucidate the point I would like to give the following example:

Suppose someone enlisted as an artisan apprentice in the Permanent Force on 1 January 1957, for a period of seven years, i.e. up to 31 December 1963, and purchased his discharge on 31 December 1962—that means that his discharge preceded the expiry date of his engagement by 12 months. He would, therefore, in terms of the proposed amendment, be liable for duty for a period of 30 days annually in the Permanent Force for the next six years. Should the same apprentice purchase his discharge on 30 September 1963, i.e. three months before expiration of his period of enlistment, he would not be required to do more than three spells of duty of 30 days’ duration each.

Section 5ter is self-explanatory and I therefore proceed to explain the amendment to subsection (2) of Section 54 and to which Clause 2 of the Bill refers.

In terms of sub-section 54 (1) of the Act a member of the Reserve of Officers is required to advise my Department of any change in his address within 14 days of such taking place. This period is reasonable and permits of contact being maintained with such member. The same period should logically apply to members of the Permanent Force and Citizen Force Reserves as there appears to be no sound reason for the existing difference.

Mr. Speaker, Clause 3 of the Bill is necessary to validate overpayments to certain Commando’s in respect of rifle range grants which were made in all good faith as a result of a misinterpretation of the Commando Regulations which were in force at that time.

In Government Notice No. 2847 dated 18 December 1953, Rifle Commando Regulations were promulgated and for the sake of convenience I quote the contents of paragraph 29, Chapter 3, i.e. the one which was wrongly interpreted—

(b) This grant will not be payable in respect of any members of a rifle commando who are provided with free target facilities at Government expense.

(c) This grant will be decreased in proportion to the number of members of the rifle commando making use of Government facilities to the total strength of the rifle commando.”

What the Department did, Sir, was to pay a Commando which had members who made use of classification rifle ranges, the maximum amount in terms of sub-paragraph (a) of the regulation quoted, irrespective of the number of members who made use of such a range and of the actual strength of the Commando concerned; the amount was thereafter reduced as determined by sub-paragraph (c); in other words, where a Commando consisted of 300 members of whom 100 made use of a classification range, the Commando was paid the maximum amount of R180 in terms of sub-paragraph (a) of the Regulation and after that amount had been reduced in accordance with the provisions of sub-paragraph (c), a grant of R120 was made to the Commando.

According to the interpretation of the Controller and Auditor-General the grant should have been determined as follows—

The Department subsequently approached the Government Law Advisers for an interpretation of the regulation and they endorsed the opinion of the Controller and Auditor-General. It is clear, however, that in the event of payment having been made in accordance with the interpretation subsequently furnished, it would have been totally inadequate for the purpose envisaged. It was never the intention that the grant should have been decreased twice and with the concurrence of the Treasury the relative regulation was amended during July 1960, to remove any further doubt. It now reads as follows—

2 (1) In each training year there shall be made a rifle range grant of five shillings (50 cents) to each commando in respect of each member or honorary member who is posted to such commando as at the last day of January of that year and does not regularly use a Government rifle range: Provided that such grant shall not exceed the amount of ninety pounds (180 rand).” The purpose of the grant remains the same as previously. The Treasury was approached with the request that the overpayment amounting to R1,518.46 and which was made over a period of six years, be condoned, but a reply was received to the effect that the misinterpretation should be regarded as ultra vires and that the Treasury was not in the position to condone the irregular payments. I may add that the Treasury has no objection against the steps which we are now taking to regularize this matter.

For years we have been losing artisans from the Defence Force, from the nature of things, what we need are meticulously trained technicians. They also have to be very reliable. The Government spend a great deal of money to train artisans—as a matter of fact the hon. the Minister said so. Over and above that the training which these men undergo, not only in the Force itself, but at the technical colleges which are supported by the Force, is of an extremely high quality. Nor did it take industrial concerns very long to realize that. They are offering these people much more money than the Minister can, with the result that the Force is continually losing trained men, and whether there is a great demand outside or not these men have always succeeded in looking after themselves. I want to give you only one example, Sir, and that is of a young man who left the Force only three months after he had completed his training for a salary nearly three times that which he earned in the Force. The result is that as soon as these people have finished their training—and even before they have served the prescribed apprenticeship of seven years—they leave the Force.

I want to bring it to the notice of the hon. the Minister that one of the main decoys—I can almost say inveiglers—is one of his colleagues, namely the Minister of Transport. Many of the artisans whom he has in his employ to-day—particularly in the Airways—come from the Defence Force. The hon. Minister of Transport, of course, pays much more.

I am afraid, however, that this measure of the hon. the Minister will not put a stop to that outflow. It is a good thing, however, that he is providing that those people can be recalled in times of peace, not only to make their contributions, but also to undergo a kind of refresher course in the Force and acquaint themselves with new equipment. This side of the House wholeheartedly support this section of the Bill

I now come to the validation of certain over-payments. To me it seems very much a case of much ado about nothing. What surprises me is that more over-payments were not made because the relevant regulation is very complicated. After this matter had been through the hands of the Controller and Auditor-General and the legal advisers we now have this new regulation in terms of which an amount had to be paid calculated on the following basis—

The over-payment is then—

I challenge any member to tell me what I have just read. Not only do you require a legally trained man to explain that but also a philologist. I think we should say what we want to say in much simpler language; in that event these over-payments will not take place. We also support this part of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are frequently being reminded from the Chair that at a Second Reading Stage of a Bill, we are concerned with the principle of a Bill. Now, a very important principle is stated here. This principle, briefly, is this, that where a man has reviewed the benefit and the privilege of training, he has thereby incurred certain responsibilities. The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronk-horst) have explained that in the case of the manual worker in the service, i.e. the air mechanic, this principle is being applied. But is the Minister prepared to apply that principle also to air crews? If a man has been trained as a pilot or a navigator and he can obtain three or four times his salary in a civil air line, would he be prepared to say that he should return to the Air Force at regular intervals? It is something which we have to consider very carefully. To extend the principle beyond our forces, Sir, a school master is frequently bound, after he has enjoyed the benefit of being trained, to serve …

To come to Parliament.

I am coming to that. He is bound to serve the department which trained him. That is the position in many countries in the world. If it is good enough for a school master, why not for a doctor on whom much more money is spent? Or an engineer? Why should a doctor or an engineer not be bound as well as the other character is being bound here? I do not wish to extend the principle but it is a very, very important principle, not only in the case of our mechanics, but in the case of all soldiers and of all civilians in South Africa.

We can appreciate the necessity for the insertion of this provision into the Defence Act, but there are one or two aspects in regard to the Bill which I think the hon. the Minister should give us more clarity. The Minister’s main object in introducing this is to retain for the South African forces those men who have acquired skills as a result of their training within the Defence Force itself. The Minister knows that when he enlists men as tradesmen, or skilled men, within the Defence Force, certain conditions apply to them. They attest for certain periods. As I understand the position, the minimum period for which a man can attest in the Permanent Force to be trained as an artisan, is seven years. The maximum period that he can attest for—he does this voluntarily—is for a maximum period of ten years. In the first year obviously he acquires no knowledge or knowledge of the barest nature. It is only after a period of four or five years that these men have acquired all the skills that will make them effective tradesmen or artisans within the Defence Force itself. What the Minister is seeking to do here is to retain as many of those men and for as long as possible within the force. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister: Whilst we recognize the need for this, the Minister must bear the other aspect of the matter in mind as well. There are regulations and provisions for men to buy themselves out. When you look at the amount a man must pay to get himself out of the Permanent Force, you see that it is utterly negligible. I have the scale in front of me. Let us assume that a man attests for the minimum period that he can attest for. In his seventh year he can buy himself out for R200. In his first year he can buy himself out for R100. But if he has attested for ten years and he wants to buy himself out before his tenth year, he need only pay R20.

Then he has done his job.

Yes, but the purpose of what the Minister is doing here is to have these men available. The Minister does not want to lose them in building up our army. He wants to retain these skilled men, even though they have bought themselves out. I think a more satisfactory way is to say to the man: “Look, you are going to buy yourself out so easily; you signed on voluntarily; you are doing this as a job to your country; you elected this as your career; you elected to get this training and if you want to get out I am going to make it more difficult for you to do so.” I think the hon. the Minister said that it cost R7,300 to train one artisan over a period of four years and he can buy himself out in the fourth year for only R160.

Order! The question of men buying themselves out is not under discussion now.

Sir, I am discussing the principle of the Bill. One of the principles of this Bill is that the Minister wants to have available to the Defence Forces these trained personnel. I am trying to indicate, by way of argument, how easy it is for them to get out. Let me put it this way, Sir: It is so easy for these men who have attested to get out at such a low cost, that they do leave very easily. The Minister now says to them that they are still going to complete the whole period for which they have attested, even though they have bought themselves out, and they will have to do so by way of 30 day periods per year. I suggest to the Minister that he gives consideration to it whether or not it should not be made a little more difficult in prevailing circumstances, who voluntarily attested in this manner, to get out of the Permanent Force. Because a great many of them will say “Oh, well, it is not such a burden to have to go back for 30 days”. But it will be a burden if they have to pay a considerably larger amount than they have to pay to-day to get out.

There is a great deal in what the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has just said. My difficulty is not so much in connection with the person who is trained in South Africa and who is then absorbed into the private sector, in industry, or in whatever it may be, but our technical colleges and training schools in the Air Force also serve as training centres partly for Rhodesia and the countries to our north. Those people are not available to the hon. the Minister to bring back for a refresher course. They are lost to our Air Force. Personally I should like to see the hon. the Minister making it more difficult for somebody to buy himself out.

The question of buying out is not under discussion at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that this clause makes provision for what we have in mind, namely, the principle of this Bill is to retain these people in the Defence Force or to bring them back to the Defence Force. That is the principle of this clause.

Order! The question of buying out is not relevant and I have already told the hon. member for Turffontein that he could not discuss that matter.

Mr. Speaker, if I may bring this to your notice: I cannot discuss the second portion without discussing the first portion as well.

Order! If it is out of order, the hon. member can discuss neither of the two portions.

The point I wish to make is that the underlying idea is that we want to retain the services of these people in the Defence Force or get them back into the Defence Force after they have left. Surely that is the idea. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker: How can we discuss that question if we are not allowed to discuss the way in which they leave the Air Force as well?

That is not relevant at all and the hon. member cannot discuss it any further.

Mr. Speaker, the entire House supports the hon. the Minister and also the idea that these people should be brought back if they perhaps leave the service after they have completed their period of training. That being the case we doubt the way in which these people leave the service and we wish to support the Minister in making the position more satisfactory. I am sorry that you have ruled that we cannot continue the discussion in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I can only express my sincere gratitude to the House for the support they have given to this Bill. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) is obviously of the opinion that I should also bring teachers back. I would rather not do that!

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this new condition is going to apply to contracts which have already been entered into, in the case of those people who are already in the armed forces. I say that, Mr. Chairman, because a person enters into a contract. He signs on for a period in the Army whether he becomes an officer or not. He signs on in good faith. There are two parties to the agreement. I think it is totally unfair to impose an additional condition on them. I would suggest that this should only apply to new contracts and not to the contracts which are already in existence. There is a provision in the Apprenticeship Act, for instance, which imposes certain conditions on apprentices, but that contract can at no time be varied by the inclusion of further conditions which would make it more onerous. I should like to hear from the Minister whether it is his intention to apply this clause to contracts which are already in existence, or whether this will only apply to new contracts.

I am afraid this will also apply to men who are already serving. If it were only to apply to new contracts it would mean that we would feel the benefit of this provision after four years, and we really cannot wait for four years to get that advantage. I am sorry, it does apply to members who are already in the force.

I take it that these apprentices signed a contract and so did the Minister of Defence. It is a contract which they have signed.

They signed on for seven years.

How can you impose additional conditions or impose new conditions? These conditions are more onerous. This is going to make it more costly to those people. Even if they buy themselves out they have to come back to the Army for one month in a year if the Minister decides to call them up. Financially they may lose a considerable amount of money. This is a more onerous condition. I think it is totally unfair to impose a condition which was not agreed to at the time that they signed the contract. Actually it is an unheard of thing, Mr. Chairman. When you sign a contract of agreement, I think it should be adhered to in all circumstances. These individuals should be invited to sign new contracts, if they want to, containing the new conditions. But I think it is totally unfair to insert this condition in a contract which already exists.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and the Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This Bill is the usual Bill to give effect to the decisions taken in Committee of Supply and to make the money available for the purposes as accepted there. It is not really customary to make a speech on this occasion but there are two matters, however, to which I wish to refer on this occasion. In the first place, I wish to say a few words in connection with the financing of State requirements which are imported. The Auditor General thought it would be a good thing if Parliament were informed in this regard and that is why I want to do so.

Hon. members will remember that on various occasions in the past I emphasized the fact that in the changed circumstances in which we were living, particularly the post-war period, it had become more and more difficult to raise the traditional type of long-term loans at a reasonable rate of interest. The tendency is more in favour of short-term loans. In recent times oversea loans have more and more become linked with the exports of the borrowing country. In future we will probably more and more have to avail ourselves of this type of loan which is linked with the imports. It is a supplier’s credit or a kind of international hire-purchase agreement under which the goods are delivered in the normal way but where payment is made by way of instalment or in a lump sum after the lapse of a certain period. The Treasury has decided that the time has arrived that we avail ourselves of this kind of facility, particularly to finance the importation of weapons and equipment for the Department of Defence.

There are two types of import credits. In the case of the first one the credit forms part of the agreement with the supplier, in other words, the contract makes provision for payments on certain dates which stretch over a longer period than the period within which the imports have to be delivered. In this case provision will have to be made annually in the Estimates for payment direct to the supplier, in terms of the contract. Interest is not, however, calculated separately or paid separately and the credit will be regarded as an integral part of the contract.

The second type of import credit is in the form of a loan by a third party, with the specific object of financing certain purchases and that will be treated as a loan. In this case the credit is arranged separately with an overseas financial institution who then pays the supplier either in cash or in instalments. The State in turn fulfils its obligations in respect of interest and capital, according to the conditions of the credit agreement. In such cases provision will be made in the Vote concerned to pay for the imported article and the Loan Account will be credited. In that way we admit that a direct, short or medium-term loan has been granted. On due date the loan will then be repaid from Loan Account.

The intention is to apply these two methods for financing purchases under the Special Defence Equipment Account which was introduced in terms of Act No. 8 of 1952 as well as purchases under the ordinary Vote. There will be no departure from the normal Estimates procedure and the loans will be negotiated within the framework of the General Loans Act of 1961. In view of the fact that we did not avail ourselves of this kind of credit facility in the past, not to a large extent at least. I think it is my duty to inform the House that we will in future avail ourselves of such facilities.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity of saying a few words about Dr. M. H. de Kock, who will be retiring on 30 June as President of the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank, is of course, a private body, although a statutory body, performing its own important functions; but apart from his duties as head of the Bank the President of the Reserve Bank plays a very important role as adviser to the Minister of Finance in so far as financial policy is concerned. Dr. de Kock has been President of the Bank since 1945, after having served as under-president for approximately 14 years. I know I am also speaking on behalf of my predecessor when I say that his advice, based on his very wide knowledge and extensive experience of monetary and banking policy in South Africa and overseas has been of inestimable value to the Treasury and to the country. The relationship between the Treasury and the Reserve Bank has always been of the best, and I think that has been due to a great extent to the person of Dr. de Kock. I am pleased to say that although Dr. de Kock is retiring as President of the Reserve Bank, he has agreed to stay on as Chairman of the Board of the Reserve Bank. I am sure, therefore, that his advice on broad matters of policy will still be available to the country. He will also stay on as chairman of the National Finance Corporation, and also as South Africa’s substitute Governor at the International Bank. Whereas he will in future play a less active role in the Reserve Bank, however, and whereas we have come to the end of one chapter, we wish to thank him very sincerely for his services; we hope he will enjoy his well deserved semi-retirement in the future. I think I am speaking on behalf of all of us when I place on record our appreciation and gratitude to him for the very valuable services which he has rendered the State and the country.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members of this side of the House, it gives me the greatest pleasure to associate myself with the words which have fallen from the lips of the hon. the Minister of Finance concerning Dr. de Kock on his retirement as President of the Reserve Bank. I think the Government is to be congratulated on having arranged to retain his services on the Board and on the National Finance Corporation and as our alternate on the World Bank. Dr. de Kock’s name has become synonymous with the integrity of South African financial institutions, and I think that successive Governments have indeed been fortunate to have been served by a man of his calibre. I believe that all of us would like to express our real debt of gratitude to him for the guidance he has given, and at the same time our thanks to him for his willingness to continue in certain tasks which he is undertaking.

Having said that, of a very distinguished public servant, I hope it will not be confused in any way with my feelings for the members of the present Cabinet, because if there is anything which has become obvious in the course of the discussion of the proposals placed before us by the hon. the Minister of Finance, then it is clear that although this Government has been in power since the last election only for a very short time, there are already evident very significant chinks in its armour, chinks which in certain respects are already threatening to become gaping holes. For that reason, I have felt it right at this stage of the discussion of these proposals to draw attention to these matters by moving the following amendment—

1. (a) to solve the many serious problems which are menacing the future of the agricultural industry;
2. (b) to lighten the many financial and other difficulties which beset the average family in South Africa; and
3. (c) to prevent the increasing isolation of South Africa from the Western world.

I felt that it is perhaps right to start by focusing attention on the agricultural situation in South Africa, because whilst successive governments have adopted the same schemes in respect of marketing, I do not think the agricultural industry has ever found itself so universally critical of any government as is the industry of this Government at present.

It is necessary perhaps to sketch the background of the situation which has arisen, and I do it in terms which the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing himself has used, so that we should have common cause in respect of the matters I want to discuss. Attempts quite clearly have been made in the past, and are still being made, to achieve stabilization of prices in agriculture by the use of four methods. Firstly, there is the one channel price fixed method used in respect of maize, wheat, oats, barley, tobacco, dairy products and which covers, according to the Minister, some 33 per cent of the total agricultural production. Secondly, there is the one channel pool scheme covering about 17 per cent of production, according to the figures of the Minister, and covering more particularly things like bananas, fresh milk, deciduous fruit and citrus. Then there are the floor price schemes which cover particularly slaughter stock and eggs. Then there are the remaining 27 per cent of our total production, covered in almost every case by special legislation. Now, the interesting thing is that surplus problems in the agricultural field have arisen in respect of certain products in each of these groups and in regard to each of the methods of marketing. What is so interesting is that the Government’s methods of dealing with them, or rather, failing to deal with them, have differed in each case and they have sometimes been contradictory and sometimes inconsistent. We find, for instance, that in maize you have the one channel fixed price system. There you have very large surpluses indeed, as you also have with tobacco, which falls under that head. In the one channel pool scheme there is trouble with bananas, and very often with fresh milk. In the floor price scheme there is trouble particularly with eggs, and sometimes with slaughter stock. We all know that in regard to the remaining methods our sugar growers have suffered as the result of our no longer being a member of the Commonwealth, to the extent of several millions of rand a year under the new agreement.

The interesting thing is the reactions of the farming community and particular farmers to the efforts which have been undertaken by the Government to deal with the surplus problem. I have here an interesting cutting dated 5 April 1962: “Surpluses worst poultry disease”, from one of the leading poultry farmers in the Cape Province. Then one has a comment from the South African Agricultural Union on the question of the dairy industry, “Suiwelboere se toestand nog benard: S.A.L.U. vra ondersoek en het vyf-punt-plan”. Sir, so the thing goes on as the farmers become more and more dissatisfied with the attempts of the Government to deal with surpluses that have been built up under the various schemes. But I know that there is nothing worrying the Minister more and nothing worrying the agricultural industry more than the position which has arisen in respect of maize in South Africa. I think it is worrying the agricultural industry because there is a feeling that the farming community is not getting a square deal in that regard. There is a feeling that the Government has not been consistent in this respect. You find that a former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Stephen le Roux, when he had to deal with mealie surpluses which were exported, refused to allow the mealie farmers any part in the profits made on the export of that maize. I know that the hon. the Minister of Information will back me up as to the correctness of that statement, because year after year he was one of those who pleaded for a division of those profits made on the export of maize. But l will not quote him; I will quote instead the Minister of Agriculture at the time, the Mr. Stephen le Roux. Here is what he said—

Then later on he says—

Those were the words of Mr. Stephen le Roux, the then Minister of Agriculture, and his war-cry was “mechanize and produce Now, Sir, we hear a different story from this hon. Minister. I do not believe I am doing him an injustice by quoting him in the following terms, where he says—

It is quite clear that the circumstances to which the hon. the Minister was referring is, of course, the huge surplus of mealies which is being exported at the moment at a loss. Thus you find, Sir, that whereas in the past maize farmers were not permitted to share in the profits when surpluses were exported and sold at very big profits to the State, now they are being forced to accept a lower price than that to which they should be entitled because there is a surplus.

What happened to the profits?

Do not let the Minister worry about what happened to the profits; but let him tell me why he is tie-parting from the guarantee given to the maize farmers in the past. You see, Sir, what is so very interesting is that whereas the maize farmers are going to have their price affected because there is a surplus, we find ourselves in the position that the wheat farmers, where there is no surplus, are going to have the price reduced. In the one case the costs of production are gone into and a fair reward to the individual farmer in every regard; so also in the other case. When there is a surplus the price is lower because the mealie farmer has to help pay for the export of the surplus at a loss. In the other case what happens? Here in the case of wheat where there is no surplus the wheat farmer gets the lower price. What do we now hear from the hon. the Minister and other members on the other side? We hear talk of “aanpassing”; we hear talk of inefficient farming and of uneconomic units. The Minister of Agricultural Technical Services actually said this at Kimberley—

“Boerehater”!

Having got the hon. gentleman duly classified where he belongs, according to the stud-book run by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) I think we can proceed and I think we are entitled to ask what the Government is really going to do about this position. It is true that by reducing prices you may succeed in reducing production and to some extent overcoming the surplus problem. I myself am not at all satisfied about that. If the price is brought down I believe that you may find farmers trying to produce more so as to get a bigger income from smaller unit profits, and I do not know whether it is going to succeed, but what they may succeed in doing is to force the weaker farmer off the land, very often only because he is a small farmer and lacks the capital resources to stand up to the stresses and strains which are going to be the result of the price policy being followed by this Government at the moment. There has, of course, been talk of quotas. There have been talks about quotas in respect of the production of mealies and they have been supported by some very experienced farmers. But as hon. members will know the scheme has its difficulties, and it would appear that that has caused the Minister himself to disapprove of it. One understands that representatives of the Mealie Board are now visiting the United States of America to study a scheme imposing limitations upon acreages sown in the hope of dealing with this problem here in South Africa. But so far as I can see the only policy which this Government has is to force the small farmer off the land. I know very well that in the United States of America the Committee appointed by President Eisenhower, after examining the various schemes to deal with surpluses in agriculture in the United States of America, came to the conclusion that it would have to reduce the agricultural population of the United States of America by one million people in the next ten years, and having come to that conclusion it saw to it that it was part of a big socio-economic scheme, with proper plans for the rehabilitation of the people concerned, with proper plans for their resettlement and with proper plans for fitting them into the various communities that were affected. Sir, if it really is the Minister’s scheme that the smaller farmer is going to go under—and it seems to be the result of the price policy which is now being followed …

Where do you get that story?

… then what plan has the Government got for dealing with this situation? Let hon. members opposite who want to know where I get this story go and read what the Minister said in the Other Place; let them go and see what is happening amongst the maize farmers of South Africa to-day. It seems that this Government is departing from the policy which it followed in the past, the policy which it had always had of combating the depopulation of the platteland, one of the policies by which it stood most strongly. Listening to these two Ministers it seems that they are departing from that, and one can very well ask what the result is going to be. I have a very uncomfortable feeling as to what that result is going to be. I think that as the smaller farmers get forced off the land, the land is going to be bought up by the bigger farmers and the bigger units, and I think we are going to see what we have seen in parts of the Free State already and what we have seen in other parts of South Africa already, and that is the buying up of those small units and the replacement of the Europeans on those farms not by European labour but by non-European labour. It seems to me that one of the biggest dangers of what is likely to happen under these proposals is that in large areas of the platteland you will find that they will become nothing more nor less than agricultural Bantustans, on which we shall depend for the population of South Africa to be fed. It seems to me, when one looks at this problem in that light, that this Government does not seem to have found any answer at all to the problem. It is not as though this problem has arisen suddenly; it has built up over the years. It has been noticed from year to year that the increase in the consumption of maize has failed to keep pace with the increased production from year to year. It seems to me that the tragedy is that this Government has just let things slide. Things have gone from bad to worse and it has never really faced up to the issue. It is very probable too that another of the problems with which it is faced has been caused in its half-hearted attempt to assist in certain cases by diversifying the agriculture of the maize farmer. Thereby they have helped to create another problem, a problem with which the Government is also faced and with which it seems just as incapable of dealing, because in an attempt to diversify agriculture in the maize-growing districts, the Government assisted many farmers in difficulty to purchase stock for the production of dairy produce and things of that kind. The result is that we now have a vast surplus in the production of dairy products, very largely contributed to by the application of this very scheme. We are now sitting with something like 16,000,000 lbs. of butter for 10,000,000 lbs. of which there is no immediate market that can be foreseen either by the Department or by the Minister. It is small wonder that the South African Agricultural Union itself passed a resolution calling upon the Government to cease applying this scheme. It is no answer to come along and say that the cattle must have been there anyway or you could not have bought them and that they would have produced milk anyway, so the surplus has not been increased by what has happened. Anyone who is a farmer at all and knows that surplus maize has been used for stock, knows that the surplus has been pushed up as the result of the application of this scheme. Now we sit with a vast overproduction in dairy produce, a vast overproduction which also falls in the one-channel fixed price group but which creates other problems with which the hon. the Minister does not seem able to cope at all. Here again what has happened? There have been increased subsidies, nearly R2,000,000 worth of extra increased subsidies, and a lowering of the price to the producer. Once again the Minister seems to hope that by a lowering of the price to the producer, the production will fall, but I am sure that he will be the first to concede that it is going to take a longer time to see what the effect of the lowering of that price is going to be than in the case of mealies.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

When we adjourned for lunch, I had drawn attention to certain circumstances which had arisen in connection with agricultural products, and was saying something about the surpluses in the field of dairy products, and I mentioned particularly the question of butter, where there is said to be some 16,000,000 lb. in stock in respect of which a market for 10,000,000 lb. appears to be uncertain. I pointed out that the method used by the Minister and the Government to deal with this problem had been increased surpluses to the order of some R2,000,000 in respect of dairy products and the lowering of the producers’ prices. But we still seem to be a long way off a solution. Great Britain has enforced a quota in respect of the import of butter, and, so far as it affects us, it is considerably lower than the amount of butter we would like to sell there; it is, I think, some 4,400,000 lb.; in Rhodesia Australia has undercut us, and we lose a market there of perhaps 250,000 lb. of butter. I think one is entitled to ask: Where are the new markets for these products which were produced very largely as a result of schemes introduced by the Government? What has the Government done about finding new markets? There have been sales in the Bantu areas at sub-economic prices, but they appear to have been undertaken, if I may say so, somewhat half-heartedly, if one is to judge by some of the remarks made by the hon. the Minister on other occasions, and that despite the value of butter as a protective food. There has been some small success with the sale of powdered milk. But once again it seems that we are in the position that the Government has been caught napping, and that not enough has been done to meet a situation which should have been anticipated.

Then there is the position which arises in regard to another product marketed in another way, marketed in accordance with a floor price scheme, namely slaughter stock. Here, too, we find that a problem has arisen at times, because, with the abandonment of the permit system, we have time and again seen over loading of the abattoirs with slaughter stock to the point where animals have sometimes been kept waiting for days before they have come forward for slaughter, to the detriment of the producer, and very often the consumer as well. Now there are attempts being made to off-load the responsibility in this regard upon the market agents, and the Minister is appointing a commission to examine the question of abattoir facilities. Sir, commissions take some time to report, and abattoirs take a long time to build, and they are most expensive buildings. What is going to happen in the meantime? What is happening about our cold storage facilities? Is the Government doing anything about it? We know that some beef carcasses have been exported, some mutton carcasses have been exported as well—some at a small profit, some at a small loss. We know some baby-beef, or what is akin to baby-beef has been sold. I believe some at a small profit. But one is left again with the feeling that the Government is doing too little too late, and that it is going to be the farmer who is going to suffer in the end. I don’t even want to mention the subject of eggs. I don’t think the Government is beginning to have a solution as far as that is concerned.

Can’t they be used for political purposes?

I cannot recommend that way of getting rid of our surpluses. But another system, a quota system, is being applied in respect of certain areas, as far as fresh milk is concerned. Here again, if one is to judge from the criticisms which the hon. the Minister himself has levelled in respect of the application of that system. I think we are entitled to ask what is he proposing to do for the future, because, quite clearly, he does not think he has got the answer as yet. Then, lastly, I think one cannot pass on without saying a word about bananas, of which tons and tons appear to have been either destroyed or chopped up and used for other purposes, and there seems to be some little doubt as to the exact amount which has been lost, but it is quite clear that the banana producers are in a very sorry position. So one could go on through the whole list of commodities, and I think it becomes clearer every day that what is necessary in the sphere of agriculture is new thinking, for new ideas to be examined, for a more imaginative approach to be sought. But instead. Sir, the story seems to be the same all the time. It is a long story of lack of preparation, of wasted opportunities as far as the Government is concerned, a story of 14 wasted years, as far as agriculture is concerned. The tragedy is that, despite surpluses and good food that we can’t sell, there is still malnutrition in the Republic.

All over the world.

There is still malnutrition in the Republic, but in very few countries where there is surplus food, as the hon. gentleman ought to know, who is so inclined to make interjections on subjects he does not know about. [Interjections.] I think, judging by the brainpower of some hon. members, there must have been a lot of malnutrition earlier in their lives. Sir, the fact is that, despite these surpluses, there is still malnutrition and a lack of protective foods for a large section of our population. Surely here it is not beyond the wit of men, not beyond the wit of this Government, to come forward with some scheme that would be of advantage both to the primary producer and to those suffering from malnutrition. One wonders whether the Minister’s problem would have been quite as great had the school-feeding scheme not been abandoned; one wonders whether his problem would have been quite as great if these schemes for the industrial development of the reserves had been advanced with the speed and the expedition which was expected by the Tomlinson Commission; one wonders whether the hon. gentleman’s problem would have been quite as great had schemes for better payment of our labour been advanced and sponsored with more enthusiasm by the Government. You see, Sir, that, whereas the Marketing Act was designed to afford orderly marketing, and to give a square deal both to the producer and to the consumer, it has been applied in South Africa most effectively to keep prices down for the consumer when world prices were high, but it does not seem to be applied to-day to protect the producer when world prices are low.

Do you want the consumers’ price to go up?

The hon. the Minister knows very well that sugar is not marketed under the Marketing Act.

I referred to consumers’ prices.

Let us go a little further. It is not being applied in that way simply. I believe, because of the fact that the Government is not applying the Act in the right way and is not playing the role that a Government should. Sudden price changes of the kind which you see now in the case of maize should not have occurred if the Act had been properly administered through the years and if the Government knew what it was about. Up to now, Sir, the Minister and the Government have been having trouble with products consumed very largely internally and of which only the surpluses have been exported. There has not been much trouble in respect of products produced entirely for export and that has largely been the position because of the fact that we have enjoyed a protected market, a market with few, if any quotas applying to it in Great Britain under the Ottawa Agreement and its successors. Now, Sir, what is the position going to be in respect of those products which we do not consume to a large extent locally and which are produced largely or entirely for export., if Britain joins the European Common Market and those preferences fall away? We know it could mean something like 2s. 6d. per box in the case of citrus. We know there is a possibility of South American competition in respect of the citrus industry. What is the position in regard to other products? All we have had so far, Sir, has been somewhat depressing statements alleged to emanate from certain representatives of the Deciduous Fruit Board overseas who are examining the position. When are we going to be told what the position is and when can the farming community hope to be put into the picture? You see, Sir, one would have expected, at a time like this, that every nerve would have been strained to the full, not only to keep the farming community properly informed as to what could happen, but also on the technical and research side in order to ensure the best possible services for the community. What have we had from the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services? We find there is still a shortage and a wastage by resignation of technical and research personnel. Last year the Minister appointed a committee under Prof. Rautenbach to advise him on this problem. In consequence he has reorganized the head office of his department. He now has three chief directors, a chief director of research, a chief director of field services and a chief director of technical policy. I will be the first to concede that there have been salary improvements, additional posts have been created, there are more career posts and the technical personnel are better treated. But it seems, Sir, that the Minister now has the generals, but where are the soldiers, where are the men to serve under the generals? He is still short of personnel. He admits that he has asked the Cabinet to allow him to go ahead on a ten-year plan for the improvement of the establishment and the creation of additional posts. But the cabinet, if I am right, would only commit itself to additional expenditure of R300,000 on a one year basis. I think the Minister will agree that I am correct.

You are not quite correct. The Cabinet agreed to a gradual increase in personnel for the first three years.

I may be a little bit out, but the hon. the Minister is still without the troops. He still has the generals unsupported on the battlefield; he is still sitting with only one veterinary surgeon for 100,000 head of stock in South Africa as against one to every 5,000 in Europe. One appreciates now why there have been these troubles of foot and mouth disease and rabies. One appreciates that very largely it has been due to a shortage of personnel and the inability to cope with the problems when they arose. He still fails to recognize the necessity for an agricultural research council. He is arguing that agriculture and animal husbandry are too diversified to have one body directing and co-ordinating research. But is industry in general not far more diversified than agriculture and doesn’t the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research work very well, or doesn’t the Minister think so? If it is so diversified, while he has created various research committees for the various branches of agriculture—he thinks that will be more effective than one control body—why does he appoint one director of agricultural research? Surely that defeats his own argument. Surely, Sir, that shows that the real problem could have been handled by a research council. When one looks through its record, Sir, you will recall that this Government has always claimed to be the farmer’s friend. All I want to say is this: If ever this Government were the farmer’s friend then it has lost an awful lot of friends in the past few years. In fact, Sir, the only friends amongst the farmers the Government seems to have are those farmers who sit in this House and who try to defend it, sometimes somewhat hopelessly. Do you know, Sir, what is actually happening? I believe they are afraid to let the farming community know what is happening. Here I have a cutting of a report of what happened at the South African Agricultural Union—

Here is what they say, Mr. Speaker—

Further on in the same report—

This is one example of the helplessness of the Government when we get down to realities. They are a wonderful band of talkers, but what this country needs are doers, careful administrators, people with foresight and what have we had instead? For 14 years the country has had to wait for the Orange River scheme and I wonder how long we will have to wait before we really see a start made. What has been the position of the ordinary man in the street? This is the Government who has talked such a lot about the cost of living which is steadily rising. Here in this legislation there are additional tax burdens on the small man, both direct and indirect. We find that the expenditure on defence, which I agree is necessary, is probably ten times as much as the extra expenditure on social, civil, war—and other pensioners provided for under this legislation. We see the removal of the 10 per cent rebate. We are going to have very little benefit from the back-payment of the 1957 levy. There is R14.2 million more direct taxation and R21.5 million more indirect taxation. We find ourselves in a position, Sir, that with all these surpluses with a Government which has been in power for 14 years, with every opportunity to make plans for the future, the industrial and economic development of the country is hardly keeping pace with the growth of the population. And who is suffering? The man who suffers is the small man, the little man. We are reaching the stage where, owing to a large extent to lack of immigrants, lack of risk capital, we are faced with a slowing down in the rate of our industrial development. That is due to the sort of policies which this Government has been following, policies which have so often led us to ask for information from the hon. the Prime Minister and from other members on the Government side as to what their real intentions are. Because we see them embarked on a road which must create uncertainty in industry and business, a road, in respect of the constitutional development inviting the Native reserves, where, I believe, the tempo of development is going to be taken out of the hands of the hon. the Prime Minister. A road which may result in inviting interference from UNO as Great Britain herself has now discovered in respect of Southern Rhodesia.

We hear of plans for the expenditure, under this legislation, of R114,000,000 over the next five years in the Bantu areas. But, Sir, the uncertainty still remains. The farmers on the borders of the reserves still do not know where the boundaries are going to be. Industry does not know where border industries are going to be and where they will not be. We do not know what the position is going to be in respect of border industries or industries inside the reserves. The first incisions have been made in respect of the Transkei; that is merely one-tenth of the Native population of South Africa. The same thing will have to be done in the Transvaal and Natal. If it is done in the Transvaal it is going to mean taking 24 per cent of the land; if it is done in Natal it is going to mean taking 35 per cent of the land. Do you wonder, Sir, that there is uncertainty; that there is a slowing down in the rate of our industrial development? Who is going to risk investment when he does not know one day whether a border industry will be inside or outside a reserve? Who is going to invest money in a development of that kind when he finds himself in the position that he does not know whether job reservation is going to be applied inside the reserves or not? Is it surprising that many members of the farming community are unwilling to make permanent improvements when they do not know whether their farms are going to be inside or outside of the reserves in the future? Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen in respect of border industries? Are the workers there going to be allowed to form trade unions inside the reserves? Small wonder that commerce and industry are asking for particulars. Small wonder that it is felt that many of these uncertainties to-day are due to Government policy and they are the reasons for the failure of our maintaining the standard of development which we are entitled to expect. If industries are developed within the reserves, will they be allowed to import White technicians and skilled artisans if they need them, from outside South Africa? Will those in the reserves be allowed to form Native trade unions? Will job reservation be applied in the industries in the reserves or will it not and what is the effect going to be? If the reserves are to be developed, a section of the population will have to be removed from the soil for its rehabilitation and for the establishment of an adequate agricultural industry in the reserves. Where is the indication that jobs are available in industries on the borders of the reserves for those people who have to be removed? There is a report from one of the directors of agriculture in the reserves calling upon the Native to increase production. Mr. Speaker, how can they increase production under the present system? Successive reports have made it perfectly clear that you will have to take people off the land before you can increase production. To do that you will have to find jobs for 28,000 people annually in border industries. Where is the indication that those jobs are being supplied or that steps are being taken by this Government to supply them? If the reserves are to house anything like the population which the Government has in mind, jobs will have to be found for something like 50,000 Natives a year inside the reserves. It has been pointed out again and again that for every job you create in industry to-day, you require a capital expenditure of approximately R2,000. Where is that money coming from? Where are the indications that a start has been made? The tragedy of it all is, Sir, that the entire approach of this Government, the entire morality of the policies which it applies, is going to be judged on whether or not there is a realistic approach to this subject. No wonder, Sir, that there is uncertainty. Small wonder that, because of the inability to establish the morality of these policies, we are suffering from increasing isolation in the outside world. This matter has been raised time and again, Sir. This matter has been raised in this House before and what did we have? We have had the hon. the Minister of Defence warning us of the dangers to South Africa, warning us some months ago of the dangers to South Africa. Can he come now and tell us that he has found additional friends and allies, that we are better off, that we are forming part of some big new defence organization, or do we remain as isolated as ever before in the defence field? In the international field we have warned again and again what the position is going to be and what the position may now be that we are outside of the Commonwealth if Great Britain is to join the Common Market. I touched on that in respect of purely agricultural products. We know that with an economy as strong as that of the United States of America, the President himself has indicated his concern as to what may happen if Great Britain joins the European Common Market. Virtually every member of the old Commonwealth has voiced his or her concern as to what the effect thereof will be on his or her economy. Most of them have been to London for talks; most of them have seen each other to discuss the position. In the meantime we have been sitting still. It is only in the last few weeks that the Minister of Economic Affairs has been sent abroad. This morning we seem to have his first public statement. Of course Sir, he is at a disadvantage. Other Commonwealth countries speak to Britain on this issue as members of the household, whereas he speaks as a mendicant outsider looking for assistance and help.

What does your brother say?

He says that capital from outside is very necessary. Now, Sir, let us go a little bit further. As South Africans we wish the Minister well in his mission. We hope that it will be possible for him to achieve something for South Africa. But, Sir, we are in this position that statements made overseas indicate more and more that the likelihood of Great Britain joining the Euromart is becoming closer and closer. That is only becoming evident now that we are studying this matter seriously. It seems to me that the time has come when we should have some statement from responsible sources indicating to our agriculturalists, those who are interested in those markets, what it is likely to mean to them. It is no reply to say: “We don’t know yet on what terms Britain will go in.” Of course, we do not know, but there must be a great deal of information becoming available already. Our people will have to plan ahead if they are to replace the markets which they will lose or find more difficult to enjoy than at the present time. We had a statement this morning—

I think we are entitled to know where the authority for that comes from—

I think we all hope that they will try to get the best for South Africa. We hope they will be successful. But we very much fear that as a result of the idleness of this Government, the attitude in which it has stood by and left things for so long, we may find that we are a little late at the feast. We may find that we are not as well informed as some people. We may find that, because of the actions which have been taken in the past, we are not in as strong a position to negotiate as we might have been had we retained our membership of the Commonwealth. Now, Sir, if that European Common Market is formed and we are outside, what is our position going to be? Is there any indication from the Government that it is going to try to seek a new relationship with the older members of the Commonwealth? Or are we to continue drifting hopelessly, isolated in a dangerous world, with no friends, with no attempt being made to try to seek friends and supporters that will make us secure and give more certainty both in the economic and in the international sphere?

I second the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that this Party and this Government claimed that they were the friends of the farmers in South Africa. It is not necessary for the Leader of the Opposition to go back very far; he need only go back as far as the last election, which did not take place very long ago, to find that not only the platteland trusts this Government and regards it as the farmer’s friend, but that the other voters in South Africa, namely the urban consumers, are regarding the Government more and more as their friend and one who looks after their interests. They are realizing more and more that the claims which the Opposition have made in the past that they represented the so-called consumers in this House are unfound; and I think the Opposition realize today that they can no longer claim to have the support of those people who have supported it in the past.

I listened to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I knew that he would avail himself of this opportunity of trying to exploit the circumstances which existed in South Africa to-day, circumstances which do not only exist here but which manifest themselves throughout the world, namely circumstances in which most countries have surpluses of certain agricultural products in excess of the normal consumption of the country concerned. I did not, however, quite expect him to do it in the way in which he did do it. I thought he would concentrate more on matters of policy. I waited and I predicted that one of the matters which he would still raise would be the price of eggs; I also thought he would come to milk recording. Unfortunately his time expired before he could do so.

One of the points of attack of the Leader of the Opposition was that the Minister and the Department apparently did not have a policy or method whereby they could dispose of the various kinds of surpluses. He said that the Minister and the Department were trying different methods of solving the problem of various agricultural surpluses. That must of course be the position. Surely you do not expect the surplus in respect of each product to be handled in the same way because the circumstances relating to the marketing of each product are totally different. Consequently the methods adopted in connection with the various products must be different. For example, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the marketing of a product such as butter for which we do not have a European market and a very small market in England, in other words a limited market. He cannot expect us to employ the methods which we employ in the case of butter in the case of another product for which there is a reasonably market in overseas countries. It is obvious that the method must conform to the demand which exists for the product and the way in which you market it. I gained the impression that after 14 years of National Party government the Leader of the Opposition was particularly jealous of the achievements of this Government and not only particularly jealous of that but also of the achievements which the South African producers had attained over the past 14 years as far as their production was concerned. We know what the position was when the party opposite was in power. They know that since then agricultural production has increased much more than the population has increased, taking it on a percentage basis. The result was that the increase in production was such that the local population could not absorb all those products. But if you made a comparison of the global income over the two periods, even if you converted it to the former value of money, you will find that there has been an average increase in the global income of the agricultural community after 14 years’ of National Party Government, even with the existing surpluses, as against the period when the United Party was in power. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be one of the first to admit that there has been a tremendous increase in the income of the agriculturist. Take maize, for instance, to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has referred. Fourteen years ago, under the United Party Government the first crop was 20,000,000 to 21,000,000 bags and at a price of 21s. per bag the global income of the maize producer was R40,000,000. To-day the production is 56,000,000 bags of maize. The price is £1 8s. per bag, and you can calculate for yourself, Sir, what the global income is.

Has the population not increased?

Of course the population has increased. I am talking about the increase in agricultural production. If the population has grown and the number of agriculturists on the platteland has grown, the number has increased for no other reason than that it is profitable to go in for agriculture, that it is profitable to produce. If there are more farmers on the platteland to-day than there were during their régime, it is because it pays them to be there. Whereas there has been an increase in our population on the platteland over the past 14 years there has been a decrease in the countries of West Europe and in America over the same period. That proves to you, Sir, that opportunities must have been created for the agriculturist by the National Government. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke spoke about maize and he naturally did so because there is a little dissatisfaction about the decrease in the price of maize because of the large surplus which has been produced. The Opposition is naturally trying to exploit the maize position a little bit. It is natural that the maize producer should be dissatisfied because he has to accept a lower price. That is human. It is very human on the part of the Opposition to try to exploit such a position and to put a wrong construction on it. The Leader of the Opposition said that a previous Minister of the National Government had promised that under all circumstances the South African farmers would receive a guaranteed price. I want to know from him who gave such an undertaking? Nobody gave it. I do not even think that the Leader of the Opposition would be prepared, while he is in Opposition and have made so many election promises to add to those, that he would guarantee the price for agricultural products. [Interjections.] It seems to me as though the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) is prepared to do so, but not the Leader of the Opposition.

However. I want to return to the accusation made by the Leader of the Opposition that the Government had left the maize producer in the lurch. The National Party Government came into power in 1948. A price for maize for that year was then announced and there were accumulated maize profits. The United Party Minister of Agriculture announced that price. The Maize Board made representations and said the price was too low; world prices were three times as high; give us only 1s. per bag more from our own funds, from our own profits. What was the reply of the United Party Minister? They refused and it was a National Party Minister who paid that 1s. per bag out of that fund in the form of an arrear payment to the farmers in 1948. The Leader of the Opposition says it appears as though this side has no sympathy for the farmer. No, the producer realizes that we are faced with a big problem but he is not prepared to exchange the security which this Government has afforded him for years for the doubtful benefit which he may perhaps never get under the United Party. The hon. member referred to the speech made by a former Minister and he said the policy which was announced was that the profits made on the export of maize would go to the Treasury. Yes, that was the policy of the United Party. They refused to pay those profits to the producers, but in 1954 this Government came forward, the same Minister to whom the hon. member referred, and he paid the maize profits made by the Maize Board into a stabilization fund and he made further contributions to the fund in the form of subsidies and over the years that fund has assisted in exporting maize and guaranteeing the price. Where does the Leader of the Opposition get the idea that the Government is paying the profits made on the export of maize into the Treasury? He should make sure of his facts.

You must listen a bit better.

The Leader of the Opposition criticized and said that promises had been made; prices were fixed on a basis and now that we had a big surplus we could adhere to that basis, and in the same breath he criticized the decrease in wheat prices which had been occasioned exactly because they were fixed on that basis. He sees in this position an opportunity of making a little political propaganda among the wheat farmers, but he can forget about that. The very basis which he asks for in the one breath he critizes in the other breath if it leads to a decrease in the price, just for the sake of making propaganda.

We in South Africa are faced with the same problem in connection with our agricultural products of which there are surpluses as any other country in the world and when we are faced with surpluses we have to find a market for them, and the only way in which you can find such a market is to sell on the market in a competitive world at prices lower than those which obtain locally or at a price lower than that at which people are prepared to buy on the local market. In these circumstances there are a few ways open to you. You can try to expand your local market, to which the hon. member has referred because we have a potential market; we have the people who can consume it but they cannot pay. We can expand that market in South Africa by supplying them with the product at a lower price. We can expand it further by competing with overseas countries, which also means a lower price. You can do a few things in order to bridge this period in which you have to accept lower prices both locally and overseas. You can do what has already been done in the case of dairy products where the State pays a subsidy to keep the price low for the consumer in the country or you can subsidize the price of maize to the consumer in order to increase your market. But the producer will have to adapt himself to this whole process and now the Leader of the Opposition comes along and criticizes the very fact that there has to be an adaptation. I want to ask him this: Does he plead for it that the producer should not be required to adapt himself to the idea of accepting a lower export price, or a lower price on the local market for that portion of the product which cannot be absorbed by the ordinary market? If he pleads for it that they should not be required to adapt themselves, there is only one way in which the producer can be compensated for the price which he receives for that portion of his product for which there is indeed a demand and that is for the Government to subsidize him for the full amount which he loses, that is the difference between the decrease in his price on the local market or the export price and the normal price. The Leader of the Opposition must tell us whether they are prepared to say that the producer should receive his full price for the product which he exports, whether he exports maize or dairy products and whether he should recover the difference in the price from the taxpayers by way of a subsidy. [Interjections.] Let us be reasonable. I am stating my attitude and he must state his. My attitude is that the Government cannot subsidize it. If he criticizes that, he must accept another attitude and say the Government must subsidize it. Surely that is logical. I maintain that the Government can subsidize to ease the position in the intervening period, but I maintain that the Government cannot subsidize that loss 100 per cent. The hon. member may disagree with that, but in that case he must tell us that the Government must subsidize. The Leader of the Opposition critizes three things. Firstly he criticizes the Minister because the Minister says the producer must adapt himself. He says that is wrong. I say it is right. If he says they must not adapt themselves, what does he suggest as an alternative? In the second place he says I should not encourage the producer to be more efficient, because that will only lead to a reduction in prices. What criticism has the Leader of the Opposition to offer against increased efficiency? He is a cattle farmer himself. When we talk about inefficiency, does he want the Government to subsidize the inefficient farmer to keep him going? I know that is not his attitude but if that is not his attitude he has no right to criticize us for saying that the farmers should be more efficient and create the impression amongst the farmers that they need not increase their efficiency because it is the duty of the State to subsidize their inefficiency.

He also criticized what was said about uneconomic units. He said that my colleague and I had on numerous occasions said that the small farmer should disappear from the industry. I just want to put that right. Nobody has ever said that the small farmer should disappear. We said the inefficient farmer should disappear. The small farmer is not necessarily an inefficient farmer. In many cases it is the farmer who farms on a big scale who is inefficient, because he farms on too big a scale or he does not manage his affairs properly, or he does not make proper use of his credit. He can be inefficient in many ways. The impression which the Leader of the Opposition wishes to create among the farmers is that my attitude is that the small farmer should disappear. I think the Government has proved that that is not our attitude, particularly over the past few years where certain branches of agriculture found themselves in difficulties due to climatic conditions, by the way in which the Government has acted and assisted the farmers with loans so as to enable them to carry on …[Interjections.] I want to repeat that the price factor is not the only thing which will save the small farmer in South Africa, particularly when the price is subsidized by the State. If a farmer produces 500 bags of maize—and there are many of them who do—and you subsidize him to the tune of 5c per bag, it means that that person only receives a global figure of R25 more. But the income of the farmer who harvests 25,000 bags of maize, increases by R2,000. He is the person who receives the greater portion of the subsidy. We realize, therefore, that that constitutes a problem and that the uneconomic small farms should be consolidated. I have even said that we would have to enlarge those uneconomic units and some of those people will disappear in the process. The Leader of the Opposition criticizes that. I would not mind his criticizing it if he had another solution to offer, but in that case he must tell us what his solution is; he should tell us what alternative solution he suggests. In that case he should tell us whether they expect the Government to keep those people on the land by way of subsidy. It is very easy for the hon. member to criticize, but I want to tell him that if he wants to make any impression outside with his criticism, he will first have to offer a solution. I have given my solution. I have said how I looked at the matter. I want to tell the hon. member where he is making a very big mistake. He says that if the number of farmers on the platteland were to decrease, the platteland would become Black and you would find more Natives there. On other occasions the hon. member does not mind the platteland going Black, but when he can use that as a propaganda instrument, he says the platteland will become Black if more farmers were to disappear, if more uneconomic units were consolidated. But is that really the position? Does the platteland go Black if there are more farmers or there are fewer farmers? Unfortunately the position is that every farmer employs a number of Native labourers. I am not pleading for it that there should be fewer farmers on the platteland. I realize that the stronger we keep the agricultural population on the platteland the better it is spiritually for the nation. We are in the position, however, where we have to get rid of our uneconomic units. Many circumstances have been responsible for that, such as, for example, the very prosperous times that were experienced when the prices of products were high, or when people sub-divided their land injudiciously or when large companies acquired land and subdivided uneconomically. We will have to give attention to this problem and we will of necessity have to consolidate some of the uneconomic units. But in the process of doing so those farmers who get into difficulties will have to be assisted by the Land Bank, as is being done to-day, so as to help them to get out of the difficulty.

The Leader of the Opposition has also criticized the Minister of Finance and the Department of Agriculture for having purchased milch-cows with the funds which the Farmers’ Assistance Board and the Land Bank have made available. My Department has never recommended that milch-cows should be purchased, but has recommended the introduction of the animal factor into agriculture, and the farmer decided for himself which animal factor he wanted to introduce. He decided whether to buy milch-cows or other animals in order to introduce the animal factor. Guidance was given. Unfortunately we had the position in 1958-9 when this scheme was introduced that there was a shortage of butter in South Africa and we had to import butter in order to supply Rhodesia. Our prices were attractive with the result that the farmer himself decided to buy milch-cows. I am convinced that had we refused to make funds available for the purchase of milch-cows, the Leader of the Opposition would have been the first person to criticize. They would have said: You want to tell the farmers how to farm. I do not want to repeat the whole speech which I made the other day under my Vote. I merely want to say that our most important duty which we have taken upon ourselves is to develop our markets and also the various boards. The Leader of the Opposition says we have woken up too late but you can only try to develop a market once you have the product to sell. It is no use trying to develop a meat market in Europe if you do not have enough meat for your local market and the same applies in the case of butter. From time to time, however, as the production of these products increased, the various boards sent people overseas to develop markets. You have the case of the citrus board, Sir. To-day they are selling just as much citrus in Europe as in Britain because they have developed their markets. When the United Party was in power they sold 4,000,000 boxes but to-day they are selling 11,000,000 boxes and we expect that number to increase. The Egg Board and the Dairy Board and the various other boards all have their representatives there and they send missions overseas from time to time to develop the markets. The Department has appointed a special official in London to investigate the whole position and to keep in touch with developments in the Common Market. But the fact remains that with the development of all these markets, particularly in the case of products such as maize and dairy products, of which the whole Western world has a surplus, you can only find a market at a price, and that if the South African producers produce huge surpluses, they will have to market that portion which they produce in excess of local demand in competition with the world market. That is the advice which we are giving the farmers. It is no good producing for a market which does not exist. That is why that is the advice which we give the people and why we are keeping them acquainted with the marketing position.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to meat. We were reasonably fortunate in obtaining good prices for our beef on the overseas market but the export of beef is only in its initial stages because we are only to-day beginning to produce reasonable surpluses. For years the position was that the Opposition had created a shortage of meat and its took South Africa a long time to produce sufficient meat. When it became clear that surpluses were sporadically being produced for only one or two months per year, but that the surplus of meat was becoming more general we immediately instructed the Meat Board to develop the overseas market, that it could export meat in a filleted condition and that it should keep super and prime beef away from the controlled markets and prepare it for export. But we are only in the initial stages. We still have to develop the market. We also know that there is not a decent market for mutton overseas. There is no demand for it and if there is a demand for a good quality meat we cannot compete with the Australian and New Zealand prices. Those markets are being developed according to our surpluses. The problem is this, however, that in the case of most of the important products of which we have a surplus, the rest of the Western world also has a surplus and we have to compete with them. I repeat that the only way in which we can compete is for our producers to adapt themselves to those prices just as the wool producer and the fruit farmer have to do.

In the meantime we have also started to develop our Bantu market. The hon. Leader referred sneeringly to the Government subsidy on butter and the decrease in the price. He said the Government paid a 2½c subsidy but the producer also had to accept a lower price. Since the price has been reduced, however, there has been a 7 per cent to 8 per cent increase in the sale of butter in South Africa. We had to reduce the price because we could not export butter. Britain could only take a certain quantity under the quota system and Europe nothing. We immediately started to develop this Bantu market when we were faced with surpluses. The Minister of Bantu Administration and I together appointed a special committee to investigate the further development of that market. The Minister of Health has already embarked on a scheme to supply Native children and those institutions under his control with milk powder in order to prevent disease. We are engaged on that, but we must realize that it is only during the past two or three years that we have had surpluses in the case of most products and it is not such an easy thing to suggest a solution.

I just wish to refer to the meat scheme to which the hon. member also referred. He said that there was a permit system in the past under which meat was supplied to the market, that the permit system had been abolished and that the agents were to-day responsible for controlling the supply to the market under the quota system. My honest opinion has always been that the agents had far too little responsibility under the whole scheme, as it operated in the past before the quota system was introduced. The agent had no responsibility whatsoever because he knew that all the stock which came to the market would at least be sold at the floor price and that he must at least receive his commission on the basis of the floor price. He knew it was not necessary for him to take the stock back and that the price could not be lower than the floor price.

That is still the position.

The hon. member says that is still the position to-day. It is. In other words, the more stock that agent can get to the market the higher is his commission. It is not a question that the price will drop if he sells too much; you have the protective, controlled price. The more stock he can get to the market the higher is his global commission. Under this system we are placing a little responsibility on to the agent whereas he did not have it in the past. To-day he must see to it that he does not overfeed the market with stock with the result that stock have to stand over for a week or ten days. The hon. Leader of the Opposition now says that the Minister is shirking his responsibility and placing it on the agent. Does he want the agent to continue as he did in the past with no responsibility? Surely he forms part of the marketing system and if the producer has his responsibility and the butcher his, that agent who also forms part of the pattern, must also have his responsibility.

What about the board?

The Board must see to it that the supply is there. It uses the agent and it places a responsibility on him to see to it that the supply is more even. I still believe, as I said on a previous occasion, that supplying the market under the quota system or the permit system does not offer a solution in so far as that portion of our production in excess of the demand on the local market, is concerned. I still believe that and I repeat it because you create an accumulation outside and our biggest problem is lack of facilities to which the Leader of the Opposition has also referred. The hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to know why we do not build cold storages. It is easy to ask why we do not do that. We have sufficient cold storage facilities in South Africa for normal marketing. The Leader of the Opposition must realize, however, that we have outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease from time to time. We have just had a serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in South West Africa. The meat which comes from South West Africa cannot be exported; we may not export it; the overseas market does not want to accept it. As a result of these circumstances we have an accumulation of meat at our cold storages from time to time. There is a second question we have to answer. It costs a great deal of money to-day to build a cold storage; it is an expensive undertaking. Every cold storage which you build to-day costs much more than an old one cost. It is no good building a cold storage at Germiston where it will cost you R170 or R180 to slaughter one ox whereas it costs 90c or R1 per ox at Newtown in Johannesburg, because the producer will continue to support that market where his marketing costs are the lowest and where he incurs the least expenditure. All these questions of cold storage facilities, abattoir facilities and the financing of abattoirs and all the other problems which present themselves are not so very easy of solution, particularly where we are approaching a stage where a reasonable number of our slaughter stock is in excess of local consumption, and where you can hardly expect your municipality, the local authority, to provide facilities in excess of those required by its own inhabitants. It is not such a simple matter to find a solution for all these problems as hon. members think. In order to see this problem as a whole you have to take all these things into account you have to bear in mind, in the first instance, the financing of your abattoirs; in the second instance, you have to take into account who should provide the services, and that was why I appointed the commission to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has referred. [Time limit.]

If ever we have had to listen to a Minister who finds himself in a maze and does not know how to get out, we have listened to such a Minister this afternoon. The hon. the Minister spoke about inefficient farmers who cannot make a success of their farming operations and said that it would be better if they disappeared from the platteland and that only the efficient farmers remained behind.

That was not the way I put it.

If ever a case has been made out that a Minister is inefficient and should make room for another Minister who would be more efficient, then the Minister himself has made out such a case this afternoon. The hon. the Minister let the cat out of the bag right at the beginning of his speech. He said that this Government has always been the friend of the farmer but then he added that this Government was progressively more and more becoming the friend of the urban population. That was where he let the cat out of the bag because the smaller the number of farmers on the platteland becomes and the less important the platteland vote becomes and the more platteland constituencies disappear with the following delimitation—and they are going to disappear particularly in the Cape Province—the more this Government is going to leave the farmer in the lurch and more it is going to woo the urban vote. Had the hon. the Minister listened properly to the amendment moved by my hon. Leader he would have noticed that it was a three-fold amendment. Not only do we say that this Government is leaving the farmer in the lurch but that it is not interested in the ordinary man who is faced with increasing costs of living. We say in the third leg of our amendment that we deplore the fact that we had lost our friends in the world outside. Where the hon. the Minister has now let the cat out of the bag and said that this Government would in future concentrate more on gaining the friendship of the urban consumer, it is quire clear to me that we have heard a song of unwillingness to assist this afternoon. The hon. Minister talked about the wonderful surpluses which we had in the country to-day. He said that we on this side were jealous of the producers and of their increased production. He spoke about the tremendous increase in the income of the farmer …

All that is true.

… and then he compared the position of the maize farmer in 1948 with the present position. The hon. Minister’s arithmetic was not so good because he said that 20,000,000 bags of maize were produced in 1948 by the maize farmer at 21s. per bag and that that came to £20,000,000. He said that it was estimated that 50,000,000 bags of maize would be produced in 1962. It was there that the hon. the Minister made it clear to the House that this Government had not realized over the years what the position was which was developing in the country. The Government did not realize that we were producing at a rate, particularly as far as the maize industry was concerned, which would present the Government with a problem, a problem particularly to a miserable Minister such as the present Minister.

Did you realize it?

We realized it only too well. The hon. member will remember that when I came to this House nine years ago that was one of the first subjects on which I spoke, and throughout these years this side of the House continually spoke about it and continually pointed out that there were no markets for the surpluses which were being produced. This side of the House continually warned and pointed out that we were making enemies and that the more enemies we made the fewer markets we would have in future.

The stronger we become.

The hon. member says “the stronger we become”. Perhaps that hon. member is one of the members to whom the Minister has referred, one of the farmers who will become stronger because other farmers who cannot farm economically will have to leave the platteland. Perhaps the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. J. J. Rall) visualizes a picture in which he will be able to acquire his neighbours’ farms for next to nothing within two or three years’ time. I want to point out that those people who will have to leave their farms will get practically nothing for their farms. We have already had a suggestion of that in other speeches of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing that he was very sorry that farms fetched the good prices which they did fetch to-day. He referred in particular to the price of farms in the maize triangle and said that those prices were too high. The hon. Minister is always saying that if it were not profitable to produce maize there would not have been such an over production of maize in which case the price of land would not have been as high as it was and the farmers would long ago have ceased to produce maize. How can the poor Minister be so ignorant? Does he not know that you cannot produce anything else but maize in that maize triangle?

The hon. the Minister spoke about the farmer having to adapt himself. He said that that side deplored it that the farmers did not try to adapt themselves to circumstances. I say that the farmers are trying to adapt themselves, particularly in the maize triangle. They are trying to adapt themselves by trying to find an alternative product to produce there. They have tried to grow summer wheat. By growing groundnuts they have tried to find an alternative industry from which to make a living; they have tried to grow sunflowers; they have tried to produce dried beans. But what do I find? I find that whereas very good prices can be obtained locally for some of these products the Minister has allowed some of those products to be imported. The hon. the Minister continually tells us about the difficulties as far as overseas markets are concerned and about the almost insuperable problem which confronts us in that we cannot find markets overseas and that when we do sell on the overseas market we must always sell at a lower price. But whereas a very good price can be obtained on the local market for dried beans at the moment, the hon. the Minister told me that he had allowed a large quantity of dried beans to be imported into South Africa and that he was going to allow more to be imported.

When did I say that?

When his Vote was discussed.

Where do you get that from?

The hon. the Minister usually does not know what he is saying. Let me repeat what I said during that debate—

The Minister’s reply to me was this: He asked me whether I was pleading for a further rise in the cost of living in South Africa because he was not going to allow the cost of living to rise in South Africa and that was why he was allowing as much dried beans to be imported as there was a demand for. The farmers can get R14 per bag on the local market for sugar beans. The hon. Minister talked about adaptation and he said that the farmers must subject themselves to this period of adaptation and he wanted to know whether we had any objection to that. But the moment the farmer tries to adapt himself by growing something else, the Minister throws the doors wide open and he allows people to import those products and he tells us that that is being done in order to combat a rise in the cost of living. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to import beans to combat a rise in the cost of living. Nobody has ever died because beans were unobtainable. The hon. the Minister told me that he had allowed haricot beans to be imported. He said that he had to allow haricot beans to be imported for canning and resale in this country.

Frankie is importing them.

I would rather not talk about who is importing them. I think we will probably discover at a later stage why the hon. the Minister was so willing to allow them to be imported. I contend that the cost of living will not rise if we do not allow beans to be imported. The hon. the Minister challenged the Leader of the Opposition; he asked whether we would under all circumstances guarantee the price of all products. It is not a question of what we will pay; it is a question of what they have promised. I do not know whether it is the dead hand of the past but I again want to read to the hon. the Minister what promises they made—

The hon. the Minister must have been dreaming when he said this because when he spoke a moment ago in this House he said that they could have received three times as much overseas as they received in South Africa.

During your time.

Very well, if it were three times as much it meant that the maize farmers had to make three times as big a sacrifice—and that Government was aware of it. Naturally the undertaking which the Minister of the day made on behalf of this Government should still hold good to-day but the sacrifices which the maize farmer made were three times as big. The Minister also said this—

Where does that appear?

It appears in col. 1693 of Hansard of 1950. That was what Mr. Stephen le Roux said when he was Minister of Agriculture.

Read where he said that he guaranteed a fixed price in future.

He spoke about a guarantee and what is a guarantee other than a fixed price? That is a guarantee. It was only that he could not speak Afrikaans very well. That was a guarantee which he gave to the farmers for the future. But he said a great deal more. He said this—

What more does the hon. the Minister want? Does he still say that fixed prices were not guaranteed to the farmers?

Of course.

As I have said the hon. the Minister spoke about one thing and another. That is the usual story we get from him. The only thing he still had to tell us was that the farmer should be willing to subject himself to all sorts of control measures; that the farmer should be willing to accept the price for his land which the Minister said he could accept; the farmer should be willing to plant what the Minister told him to plant, and that the farmer should be willing to sell as much as the hon. the Minister allowed him to sell, and he said that unless that was possible it was not possible for this Government to give any undertaking in connection with farming.

The hon. the Minister asked whether we were willing to subsidize all these products and he referred to the period which had to be bridged and the small farmer and he said it was not his policy that the small farmer should disappear from the platteland it was only his policy that the inefficient farmer should disappear. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: The small farmer and the inefficient farmer whom he has in mind are synonymous.

That is not true.

Why do you talk about uneconomic units then? Surely it is obvious, seeing that the margin of profit has become so very small, that it has shrunk to such an extent that the small farmer cannot make a living, that he will have to disappear from the platteland. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister does not remain quiet for a minute; I remained quiet while he spoke. That only shows that I am hurting him. What the hon. the Minister has not told us yet and what not a single speaker on that side has told us is what is to happen to that inefficient farmer and his family. What must happen to those people who are not trained to do any kind of other work? Where must they go to? Must they come and sweep the streets in Cape Town, or must they load the parcels into the trains at our stations, or what must become of them? Must they clean offices in Pretoria and Johannesburg? Is that what they will have to do?

Do you think it is humiliating to do that work?

I want the Minister to tell me that it will not be necessary for them to do that humiliating work.

I say they must become efficient.

I want the Minister to tell me what alternative work he will provide to them. He said this afternoon that there would be fewer farmers on the land.

May I ask the hon. member whether she thinks the work to which she has just referred is humiliating work?

No, I do not think it is humiliating work.

But you said it was, didn’t you?

No, the hon. member said it was humiliating work, not I. I said that I did not want them to have to do that work, and I say it again. I do not want them to do that work because that work is not well paid. There are enough other people to do that work. I do not want the White race to which I belong to have to do that work—and unnecessarily at that. I do not want them to be placed in that position as a result of the actions of a Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing who does not know his job and as the result of the actions of a Government which does not realize its responsibilities. The hon. the Minister said that he was not pleading for it that there should be fewer farmers. He explained that the uneconomic holdings should be consolidated and he said that in that case it would not be regrettable if there were fewer people on the platteland. Mr. Speaker, I received an interesting letter this morning from a Nationalist in the Free State. The person describes himself as a Nationalist. He says this—

That was what my hon. Leader said and he knew nothing about this letter. He goes on to write this—

[Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, there is an hon. member here who is making very personal remarks, but I am not taking any notice of him; I am pleading the cause of the farmers in the country—

Mr. Speaker; you will not allow this: I will, therefore, substitute it by saying “the weak Ministers”—

That is another story, Sir, and it comes from a Nationalist. [Interjections.] Yes, he is fast becoming a United Party supporter; that is quite right.

And he is one of many who are becoming United Party supporters.

That was why I said a moment ago that with the next delimitation we will find constituencies delimited in a different way, because this Government is to-day heeding the warning. What are the true facts of the matter, Sir? The fact is that the farmer has become prosperous; that he is accepting the technical guidance which comes from that hon. Minister; because of mechanization that the farmer has become more efficient and has produced more; that he is exercising stricter control over his labour and has in consequence reduced his costs as much as possible. While the farmer has done all that and while I have nothing but praise for all the farmers of the country, even for the man who has not been so prosperous and successful—because I do believe that he also did his best—they have no control over the prices and over their production costs. Among others, the farmer has no control over the climate; that is beyond the control of everybody. The farmer is subject to depressions, which is also a matter which is beyond his control but a matter which can be controlled by this Government. The fact is that the more unfavourable the conditions under which he produces, the more he has to try to make a small profit. The fact is—the Minister denied it to-day—that the price factor is the mightiest factor when it comes to determining what sort of product to produce. However, a proper price to the farmer depends on the policy of the Government of the day, and in this respect the Government has failed hopelessly. In spite of the fact that the farmer has tried to improve his position by cultivating a greater number of morgen and by acquiring more grazing land if he is a stock farmer, or by producing more per unit; in spite of the fact that the farmer has tried to improve his position by using better fertilizing methods, the farmers are finding themselves in the distressing position in which they are to-day.

All of them?

Not all of them. There is an odd one here and there who inherited a farm from his parents unencumbered. There are farmers here and there who inherited the stock with which they are farming to-day. But the farms of many of those farmers are encumbered to-day, some of them have already left their farms and the hon. member knows it. Some farmers inherited their farms unencumbered but they have been forced by circumstances and as a result of the declining margin of profit to mortgage their farms. The Minister said that himself. The hon. the Minister spoke about the enormous amount of money which had to be lent to the farmers by the Land Bank. He said the Government had helped the farmers. That is true, the Government did assist them to this extent that they are only indebted to one person to-day whereas in the past they were indebted to a number of people, but they owe every penny of that money and they will have to repay every penny of that money and they will have to repay it during this time when the profit margin is shrinking and while the production costs are increasing from day to day.

Are they not repaying to-day?

Yes, they are repaying, as the farmers have always tried to repay. But I wonder whether the hon. member has read the Land Bank report. According to the report the outstanding arrear payments amounted to .857 per cent in 1944 and in 1959 that percentage was 1.620 per cent, in 1960 it was 1.950 per cent and in 1961 it was 3.397 per cent. In other words, since 1959 up to 1961 it had quadrupled. In this connection I want to say what I have already said before namely that there is no co-ordination between the various departments of the Government. When the Vote of the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services was under discussion the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing was absent with the exception of about 20 minutes, and when the Vote of the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing was under discussion, the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services was never present.

Does that prove a lack of co-ordination?

It proves a lack of interest.

It proves confidence.

If that proves confidence Heaven help the poor farmers! When those Votes were discussed the Minister of Commerce and Industry was practically never here either. I regard this position in a very serious light. I want to state clearly once again that I am a stock farmer and the stock farmers are still in the best position in our country although they too have already found themselves in difficulties. They find themselves in difficulties because the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has been unable hitherto to find markets for their surplus meat.

Where is he?

He has disappeared. I suppose he has gone to look for markets. We know that once South West is no longer under quarantine and permits are again issued, there will be too much meat in the country and those prices will also drop and the farmer will have to adapt himself in that case as well. However, as I have said, there is a continual lack of interest on the part of the Government. They simply do not care what happens to the farmer. As far as the farming group of the Government party in this House is concerned, they are divided into two sections. You have the section who gets up and honestly and sincerely tells the Minister and the Government that something will have to be done. Then you have the other section who says that the position of the farmers has never been as good as it is to-day. I have studied them, Sir, and those hon. members who say that the position of the farmers has never been as good as it is to-day, have something else to fall back upon, and if they have not they make application as quickly as they can to find something else. But every real farmer in this House knows that every word I have said is the truth.

It is not true; you are talking nonsense.

My hon. Leader said that the agricultural unions had decided not to make any further use of the broadcasting services. I will return to that. However, I saw another article in that same agricultural journal in which they ask the following—

This is the report to which my hon. Leader has referred. They only preach to the converts. It is not surprising, therefore, that they do not want the position of the farmer to be exposed over Radio South Africa and that this article concludes by saying this—

An ordinary little official of the Department of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs …

How big is he?

Probably just as big as you—I am not talking about being small in stature. If we have reached the position to-day where an ordinary official of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs censors what the farmers want to tell their fellow farmers in South Africa and what organized agriculture want to say to its fellow farmers in South Africa and the guidance which they want to give them, because that is what the radio is being used for …

How does the hon. member know that it is an ordinary little official?

I judge the official by the Minister or Posts and Telegraphs. If the Minister appointed him he cannot be anything else but very ordinary. The position is to-day that the farmers are being told a story in which the facts are not taken into account, a story which does not take into account what the farmers and organized agriculture themselves say. What does organized agriculture say? Here I have a resolution which they passed at their congress—

“A more virile sales policy”. The hon. the Minister tells us …

Where is he?

He got rid of his generalities and has now disappeared and does not care what happens to the farmers in future. They wait until there is a surplus which cannot be controlled and then they start looking for markets. While I am on this subject, as I see the matter, we will be exporting 30,000,000 bags of maize this year. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister has asked the Minister of Transport whether he can handle 30,000,000 bags.

Not 30,000,000 bags.

Perhaps 29,500,000 bags. I do not want to argue about that. No doubt the hon. member will be wrong.

You are talking to a member of the Maize Board.

Of course, I am saying that to a member of the Maize Board. It is obvious that the Maize Control Board did not know that there would be such a big production and that was why they have not made any plans and the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing was the person who spoke in condemnatory terms about that, because he referred to the citrus farmers and said “Look what the Citrus Board has done”. He referred to other boards and said that they themselves should find markets. What has the Maize Control Board done? Let the hon. member tell us. They continue to say that it should be borne in mind—

These members have been faced with this accumulation of surpluses all these years. Why did they not try to find a way of processing the product so that it could be exported in a processed form? [Time limit.]

I have often heard the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) speak, but I must honestly say that I have seldom seen her perform such an egg dance as she did to-day. She went from the one point to another and tried to score a point here and another one there; she made all sorts of statements, peculiar statements. One of her statements which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed was to the effect that maize production was not profitable and in order to make it profitable the farmers had to produce still more. That was really a peculiar statement and to-day was the first time that I heard it said that that was the reason why they had to continue to produce more. I want to return to some of the allegations she has made, but there is another one with which I want to deal immediately. During the agricultural debate she spoke about beans, the shortage of beans, and on that occasion the hon. member argued that when there was a shortage of beans, the Minister had allowed beans to be imported. Mr. Chairman, we have had two governments and the United Party handled agriculture for a long time. Beans do not constitute a staple food but let us take maize which does constitute a staple food and let us see what the United Party did. When there was a shortage of maize, what did the United Party do?

May I ask the hon. member how the sins of the United Party have affected the farmer of to-day?

I will tell you, Sir, what those sins of the United Party have cost the farmers. At a time when great profits could have been made they kept the price low, so low that it was totally uneconomical. I will return to that. Let me just point out that during those years the price of maize was 19s. and £1 1s. 3d. per bag and maize was impored into South Africa at £2 4s. per bag and when it arrived here it was discovered that there was a shortage of maize in Rhodesia and they sold some of the maize which they had purchased at £2 4s. per bag to Rhodesia at £1 10s. and £1 6s. 9d. per bag. Can the hon. member deny that? That was United Party policy.

A great deal has been said about the guarantees which Mr. Stephen Le Roux promised when he was Minister of Agriculture. I first want to return to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition Let me tell you, Sir, on what basis the maize prices and the prices of most of the staple food products was determined in those years. Since when has there been a fixed basis? That was one of the guarantees which the Minister gave at the time namely that a fixed basis would be introduced on which production costs would be calculated, and prices are throughout to-day still calculated on that basis, on the basis laid down by Mr. Stephen Le Roux at the time. The Department of Economics and Marketing accepted the basis on which costs were to be calculated and to-day the actual costs of the farmers are determined on that basis and the price is based on it.

Let us return to the profits which were made. The hon. member also talked about the small farms, the uneconomic holdings. I should very much like to know from the hon. member what an uneconomic holding is. If she talks again one day she must tell us what an uneconomic holding is.

As far as the maize surplus is concerned, we believe that the Railways will probably be able to handle the expected surplus of 28,000,000 bags. That will really be an achievement on the part of the Railways because it will be double the amount they have ever conveyed in the past. Due to the consultations which are being conducted to-day, and as things are at the moment, I believe that we will be able to sell it fairly profitably and that we will make something out of it.

I want to return to the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Really, Sir, it reminded me of the years when I still played rugby, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made me think that he was also trying to play a wily game, that he was trying to slip past on the other side. During all the years that I have been sitting in this House the Leader of the Opposition has usually made a speech on general matters of policy on the occasion of this important debate of the end of the Parliamentary Session, he usually gave us a review of world conditions. The Prime Minister then replies and gives us a statement of policy as well. I maintain that there have been great developments in recent times in the world, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not say a single word about those. He only spoke about agriculture. I take it that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs listened attentively in order to reply to him. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to go round at the wrong side, the playing side. I think if anybody has been disappointed in that speech, it must have been the members of the agricultural group in the Opposition, the members on the Opposition side who represent agriculture. During the past few weeks nothing new has happened in the sphere of agriculture which was not criticized under the Agricultural Votes. We must take it, therefore, that the debate on those occasions was of such an extremely low standard that the Leader of the Opposition had to devote his main speech to agriculture, something which really amounts to a motion of no confidence in the members of his own party. You cannot regard it as anything else, Sir. He is very disappointed that he had to devote his main speech at the end of the Session to agriculture. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition reverted to and spoke about the profits which were made on maize over the years. I want to point out, however, that profits have not only been made during the years that the National Party has been in power. Profits were also made in the years when the United Party was in power. I want to give you a few figures, Sir. During the years 1939-40 9,000,000 bags of maize were exported at a profit; in 1940-1, 5,000,000 bags were exported; the following year, 2,400,000 bags were exported. That was why there was such a terrific decline in production during the régime of the United Party, it was only in 1947-8 that we again exported on a large scale. Will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell us what happened to the profits which were made on maize during the first years which I have mentioned under the United Party? Do you know what happened to them? All the profits for those years were paid into the general State coffers in contrast with the policy which the United Party is advocating to-day. It was only when the National Party came into power that the position changed. During the first few years of the National Party Government we did not export large quantities, but when the United Party was still in power the Maize Board said: Very well, we accept it that it must go to the State coffers but as a temporary measure; we regard it as totally wrong, however, that it should be paid into the general State coffers. They, however, continued to do so from year to year until the National Party Government paid the profits which were made according to the auditors into the Stabilization Fund. Since the National Party has been in power every penny of the profits made on the export of maize has been utilized to the benefit of the maize farmers. The maize farmers have received every penny of the profit that has been made during the régime of the National Party.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as the hon. member for Drakensberg talked about guarantees and they referred to the surpluses which have accumulated. The National Party guaranteed that the price would be laid down according to a fixed basis of costs calculations, totally different from the method followed by the United Party. But on the occasion when that basis was accepted, Mr. Stephen le Roux added something else. I want to refer to the address given by Dr. Neethling in those years to the Agricultural Union when he said that there were three parties who had to contribute to the Stabilization Fund, subject to this proviso: When the production is more than the country’s requirements the surplus should not be such that it cannot be controlled. The condition was laid down at the time that the three parties, namely the State, the consumer and the producer should all three contribute to the fund. I am not saying that those three parties have throughout all these years contributed directly, but directly and indirectly all three parties have in the course of years continued to make their contributions to the funds.

We have the position to-day, Sir, that for the second year in succession over 50,000,000 bags will be produced and the position with which we are faced is this: Which of the three parties must pay more? As the position has developed since last year, we must think about it whether we can allow the consumer to pay more? If you make the consumer pay more to what extent will that affect local consumption? Is the consumer prepared to pay more than he is already paying on the local market? And if you do not do that, what do you do then? The State is already paying R10,000,000 in order to stabilize the maize industry, which includes subsidies. In order to stabilize the industry the State is paying approximately R10,000,000. The present crop will be the biggest crop we have ever had in this country and only one of two things can happen and I would have been pleased had the hon. the Leader of the Opposition taken a stand in this respect. Does he see his way clear to let the consumer pay more? In the second place there will be a shortage of approximately R17,000,000 and does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggest that the State should contribute that, that the taxpayer should pay that amount, which would lead one to conclude that a policy would be formulated whereby if the production continues to rise—it was 42,000,000 bags formerly, last year it was 53,000,000, and this year we expect 56,500,000 bags, when it reaches 70,000,000 and 80,000,000, which is not at all improbable—the State will have to continue to pay the deficit while the yield per morgen had increased by six bags. My question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is this: Must the State in that event continue to pay the shortfall? Who must pay it; only one of the three parties or all three together? That is what we are anxious to hear from the United Party. All we have had from the United Party to-day, has been the policy which they followed throughout the years when they were in power, namely that when there was a surplus of maize, they reduced the price. When there was a surplus they did not even calculate the production costs, but they immediately brought the price down to the consumer and everybody else. During their time they never calculated the cost of production. That is the policy which the United Party followed and which we must compare with the policy of the National Party. We are today faced with a surplus which is about to assume vast proportions. I do not deny that there are some farmers who are in difficulties; I do not deny that this creates problems. But then the United Party must be honest and tell us whether they have another policy and what that policy is—that their policy is that the State and the taxpayer should make good that loss. I should like the next United Party speaker to tell us clearly that in future the United Party will follow a new policy—because it will not be their old policy—namely that they are prepared, if there are losses, not only in respect of mealies, because if they subsidize the one product they must pay a subsidy in respect of all surplus products which are produced in South Africa, the production in excess of the country’s demands—that those losses should be subsidized by the taxpayers of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a final point raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and that is the mission which has gone overseas. I am not going overseas. The hon. Leader also referred to the quota system. The United Party tried a quota system during their régime, namely a basis on which to assist the small farmer and they paid an additional 1s. 6d for the first 500 bags of maize. If it is true that the small farmer has such a difficult time and that he is going under, as we have been told by the hon. member for Drakensberg, do they think that an additional 1s. 6d. on the first 500 bags will mean anything to him and that that will save him? What has been the experience? Some of the farmers split their crops. In short, the scheme was not a success and it was abolished by the United Party itself. If a quota system basis has to be introduced, the matter will have to be thoroughly investigated. It is not necessary for us to follow the American policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition enlarged haphazardly on a number of things that were happening in America, as though we were already experiencing those things in this country. But when you investigate any matter, when you are faced with the difficulty of huge surpluses, difficulties which you have to meet in future, it is essential that you find out what is happening in other countries. It is not necessary for you to adopt their plans, but they can teach you and give you guidance. I accept it that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will never adopt the attitude that you cannot gain by the experience of other countries and learn something which you can apply in your own country. That, however, will not be the only task of the mission. A section of that mission is also going to Japan in respect of trade with that country and at the moment we are conducting negotiations with certain parts of China to try to sell maize to them as well. Should we try to develop those markets or should we leave them alone? Surely we should try to expand our trade with the outside world and try to find new markets. It would be a short-sighted policy on our part if we did not do so. And I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whom we regard as a reasonable person, particularly as far as this sort of development is concerned, has adopted that attitude in respect of the mission. I hope the mission will be successful and that we will reap wonderful benefits from it, as happened in the case of previous missions which went to Europe, missions which really showed good results. The hon. member : also referred to the fact that we were originally of the opinion that only 22,000,000 bags would be exported but that we expected today that it would probably be the full 28,000,000 bag. That being the position, should we not, because of a little criticism, because of a short-sighted attitude on the part of the Opposition, avail ourselves of those opportunities and try to develop markets where we can sell our surpluses?

As far as this debate is concerned, Sir, I have really been disappointed in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We thought that in a debate such as this, we would get a speech from him in which he dealt with important matters, with world politics in general, but he sunk to a level at which he thought he would gain a little party political capital for himself in the country; he thought he could get that by sinking to the level of conducting the sort of agricultural debate which he did.

We had a great deal of difficulty this afternoon to draw the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing into the debate. I was not sure whether he was here, but I notice that he is.

He has been here all the time.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I realize that he has been sitting at that end. He has changed his seat this afternoon as he has changed his policy, particularly in connection with the meat scheme. I do not know whether he is just echoing what members opposite are saying in this instance or whether they are echoing what he is saying. I must give him credit for it that he is more intelligent than that and that he will admit that this side of the House is also more intelligent than that. He says that there has been an increase in agricultural production under the National Party Government implying that the Government which governed this country from 1945 to 1948—the period after the war—was not able to bring about an increase in agricultural production and that it was this Government who, with its good price structure, its encouragement and the rest of it, has been responsible for the agricultural production which we have to-day. Do not let us be as naïve as that, Sir.

It was a question of price structure.

I will give you another chance, oubaas (an old person). I sat dead quiet listening to you.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to refer to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) as “oubaas”.

The hon. member must refer to an hon. member as “the hon. member”.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Christiana as the hon. member and as an “oubaas” whom I love. One would almost think that the country had not emerged from a war in 1945. It was necessary during the war to supply ships, to sell our agricultural products, to a great extent to the outside world, and the animal population was reduced in an attempt to supply warships and the people in overseas countries with food. But the most important fact was that a large percentage of the farmers was up North and in war camps as prisoners of war and were not themselves in a position to produce. And then we really still have the argument, Sir, that there were no surpluses from 1945 to 1948.

The hon. member for Christiana mentioned the price structure which the United Party maintained from 1945 to 1948 and he said it was of such a nature that the farmers could not produce profitably, and he repeatedly men-during that period from 1945 to 1948 and afterwards we had a head at the Department who followed a policy (and he repeatedly propagated it at many agricultural congresses) that the price structure should not be allowed to get so high as to bring about inflation in the country with the result that land prices would follow suit and increase more and more.

And to-day?

There we have the question! The prices of agricultural products have gone up. I blamed this Government the other day for having allowed the price structure in regard to agricultural products to get so high that the price of a maize farm has increased to £100 per morgen. [Interjections.] The price of land is so high to-day that the Government is unable to reduce the price of mealies sharply, because a great portion of production costs arises from the capital which has been invested in the land on which the maize is produced. Because if you have paid £100 per morgen for the land on which you produce maize, you have to pay interest on that capital, and that at an increasing interest rate.

I wish to return to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics until the hon. member for Christiana returns and I want to ask him this: He states that the good price structure and the good agricultural policy of this Government have been responsible for it that we to-day find ourselves in a cycle of surpluses. If that is the case how does he explain the fact that in the case of Canada and Australia, where the population has practically doubled, and where the increase in the population, that is consumers in the country itself, has been much more than normal, their exports have increased tremendously over the same period? We know that even before the war they were already exporting countries. Surely it is a normal occurrence in agriculture, Sir, that when you mechanize and you have enthusiastic people, they will produce more and more unless you prevent them from doing so. The Government must not underestimate the public outside and advance an argument such as that and tell the farmer and the city dweller that it has been this wonderful Government which is responsible for these surpluses. It is not this wonderful Government which is responsible for these surpluses. They are due to the fact that the farmers found it necessary to produce. Mechanization has been introduced and when the farmer buys a tractor he has to plough, otherwise it does not pay him to have that tractor. He no longer has the span of oxen which he can fatten and re-sell, or a number of spans of oxen which he can also regard as an asset. He no longer has oxen which appreciate in value. To-day he has a machine which he must keep going otherwise it is a loss to him, and even when it does run it sometimes means a loss.

Both the hon. the Minister and the member for Christiana issued a challenge. They asked whether this side of the House was prepared to say whether the people should subsidize the export of these surpluses at a reduced price—yes or no. I most certainly say “yes” and there should be a gradual decrease in the prices of the products; it should not at once be half a crown a year per bag of maize.

May I ask a question? I want to know whether the United Party is prepared to subsidize the losses 100 per cent in all circumstances?

Mr. Speaker, I will reply to that. The hon. member for Christiana asked the same question when he asked whether this party suggested that those losses should be subsidized. I said most certainly yes, subject to the condition that the decline in the price structure should be more gradual and not 2s. 6d. per bag of maize in one year—9 per cent in one year on what the farmer receives; or 14c on 100 lb of milk, which is 12 per cent of the farmer’s income in one year. That is what is being done in one year in order to put the price structure right, so that the State will no longer be responsible for subsidizing the farmer to such a large extent. We can tell the hon. the Minister at this stage already that it will only take him three years at that rate and he will have caught up with world prices in the case of maize. If you build a structure over a period of 10, 12 or 14 years I say it is illogical to try to put it right in three years’ time. Surely the farmer too is an economist.

What must be the source of that subsidy?

Where I said that the State must pay it, the State coffers are the source, and that hon. member ought to know that. I want to ask this pertinent question: Is it the fault of the farmer that production costs are what they are to-day? What can he do in order to reduce those costs? I have often heard the argument that because of mechanization and increased production, production is on a more economical basis to-day. I have also heard the story about wheat—the story that wheat is produced two years out of every five and that you sow lucerne simultaneously during those three years. Nobody has yet got up and said that the income which you derive from the stock which graze on that lucerne can be compared with the income you receive from the wheat which you produce on the same morgen of land. Get up and say he derives the same income. Surely he does not derive the same. He does not derive the same income from the stock which he places on those wheatlands which he has put under lucerne, lucerne which he keeps there for three years in order to replace the nitrogen in the soil. He gets much less from the stock. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to a point which I made the other day, a point which is of great importance to me, to this side of the House and to the farming community, apart from any propaganda. I am referring to droughts and the sacrifices they demand from our animal population in this country. While I am dealing with that, Sir, I want to remind you that the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) sneeringly said the other day that he did not understand the term “kubusse” which I had used. The English for it is “cubes”. Had he kept pace with agricultural development …[Interjections.] He can look it up in the dictionary and he will find the word there. Had the hon. member kept pace with organized agriculture and had he known about the Drought Commission and the Fodder Bank Commission, on which the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture served for a long time, and had he known what they recommended, he would have known about this. They pointed out that we should use the fodder which we had available in its raw state, fodder which may perhaps be surplus, and if we added concentrates to it, maize or oats or whatever it may be, molasses, trace elements, bone meal and pressed in into cubes, the eventual loss in fodder would be less than 1 per cent and the harm to the animal nil. The animal can pick it up off the ground or else eat it out of a trough. He can eat and digest it as a balanced food, without suffering any harm and without there being any wastage. [Interjections.]

They are joking with the farmers.

Order

In 1949-50 this country sustained losses to its animal population due to droughts as follows: 2,500,000 head of sheep, 1,000,000 head of cattle and 500,000 goats. According to the market prices which prevailed at the time the estimated value of that stock amounted to R30,000,000. That was the direct loss. What was the indirect loss? What about the breeding potential that was lost; what about the dairy products and the wool that were lost, and what about the good farmers who were ruined due to the fact that they were impoverished by the drought and could not carry on. [Interjections.]

Order! No, hon. members must not play the fool.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that when one discusses tragedies of this nature, tragedies which affect the entire farming community and which paralyse it, some hon. members are inclined to make a joke of it.

May I ask you a question?

No, I want to finish. Mr. Speaker, that brings me to the Orange River scheme. We are all proud of that scheme, it is one which we should all like to see materialize. The scheme is cast in this mould that it will operate irrigation schemes; it will also benefit industrial and urban communities, without taking into account the tremendous problem of the drought-stricken areas of the great north-west, whereas that could so easily have been done. Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that with a view to criticizing the Orange River scheme. The scheme is only in its initial stages and I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that earnest attention should be given to this. We have already sent there deputations to Australia to make a study of their irrigation schemes. Many of my friends have already been to America where they have seen what they do with irrigation. We see the methods they employ there in order to make water available for irrigation. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services has the information but I should like to give it to him once again. Years ago they harnessed the Goldburn River and what did they do with it under the Wimmera-Mallee scheme—it is only one of the peculiar Australian words. It is situated in the State of Victoria. Apart from the fact that they irrigate 263,000 acres of land they have done the following: The State built canals and laid on pipes for over 12,500 miles. Private enterprise built canals for a distance of 3,000 miles. What do they do with those? They supply farm dams and supply water to an area which is as dry as our north-west, so that the stock will not die of thirst during droughts. In this way 15,800,000 morgen of land are being provided with water. Australia has greater drought-stricken areas in its centre and in its western area than we have. This scheme supplies 12,000 farms on which there are 45 villages and 120,000 people. I ask in all reasonableness: Where this big scheme has been announced and where everybody is anxious to help to promote the scheme and to see it developed, we do not want to criticize it from this angle that it will bring about an increase in agricultural production and that it will create more and more surpluses. [Interjections.] We will have to see to it that our price structure in respect of agricultural products is such that it will be at a par with world prices when faced with huge surpluses. However, the cardinal requirement at this stage is that it must be brought about gradually, so that the farmer hardly feels it. It is in this respect that I have so much criticism to level at the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. He shrugs his shoulders and all the friends opposite echo what he says whereas the farmers definitely feel that they are suffering an injustice. He cannot sacrifice half a crown per bag in one year. Had it been 5c or 10c he would have felt differently about it. What is the reason? Mr. Speaker, we blame this Government …

May I ask a question? Does the United Party say that local market prices should eventually be at a par with overseas prices; should the prices be on the same basis?

Had the hon. member for Christiana been present earlier on—I repeatedly referred to him—he would have had a reply to his question. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say anything more about the maize position. My hon. Leader has already dealt with it adequately. I was only replying to the hon. member for Christiana. I just want to say this in connection with the price structure. I am not qualified to talk about wheat prices. I know that the price has been reduced. But let us just examine what is happening in a country which can surely also say that it has increased production due to mechanization. What do we find in the report of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers for the year 1961?—

I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that if the policy in Canada is that because production costs have increased, the farmers must receive more, it is a pathetic policy which we follow in South Africa that if production costs do not come down, the farmer must receive less. The hon. member for Christiana also asked whether we were opposed to missions going overseas to look for markets for our products. Good heavens, Mr. Speaker, we have always said in this House that we must look for markets and where we should look for them and whether we should always just look for them in those areas where we know we will lose some of our markets or whether we must look elsewhere for markets. I said on a previous occasion that we had the large Middle East; those countries are not all ill-disposed towards us as far as markets are concerned. The United Arabic Republic only has one partner in the Middle East, as far as I know, and that is Syria, and the other countries do not all agree with Syria. If Lebanon is prepared to buy from every White race in the world, what is wrong with us? Or is this another case of Cyprus and Turkey and Greece? What are we doing to find a market there for the maize of the hon. member for Christiana. We are in favour of it that markets should be sought over the whole world. We should not discriminate on the basis of colour and refuse to look for markets in those countries.

I want to deal with dairy products. Was it necessary to reduce the price for 100 gallons of milk by 14 cents in one year whereas our export of butter increased from 2,000,000 lb. to 30,000,0000 lb. in one year? Did we really get such a fright at the neglible export of 30,000,000 lb. of butter at a small loss that we immediately reduced the price by 14 cents? Let us see what is happening in the dairy world today. They say in this article in the International Federation of Agricultural Producers: “United Kingdom restricts butter import quotas. The restriction went into effect last month (April) and will hold butter imports to 874,000,000 lb.” The Minister said a moment ago that if all the countries produced too much what would happen to the surplus in that event? He said on a previous occasion that we could not export butter, not even at any price. Here is another country which wants 870,000,000 lb. in one year in terms of a programme that “the main suppliers to the British market are given specific quotas. The New Zealand quota is 349,000,000 lb.” We all know that she is an old supplier to Britain under contract. Let us go further. Denmark has a quota of 205,000,000 lb.; Australia 139,000,000 lb. I wonder where they get all these surpluses from? Holland has a quota of 31,000,000 lb. and Ireland 27,000,000 lb. Irrespective of quotas, why did we not enter that market two years ago? [Interjections.] One would almost imagine. Sir, that we did not already have a surplus in 1960.

We imported butter at that time.

We already exported butter at that time, but we did not make the provision which those countries made, they got people to sit on the steps of 10 Downing Street. We were so delighted with our position of isolation that we said more or less that we could get along without the world and we did nothing. [Interjections.] I contend that this Government has thrown the dairy farmers to the wolves this year. It is not their fault that they have all gone in for dairy products on such a large scale. The farmer has to produce something and if he cannot produce maize because of the surplus, he will produce dairy products, and if the climate is right he can produce pineapples, or sugar or something else of which there is already a surplus or where a surplus threatens. If he cannot produce dairy products what is there for him to produce?

Small wolves.

Order! This foolery must stop. If the hon. member makes another rude remark like that, I will ask him to leave the Chamber. It is a disgrace!

The policy is obviously that because agricultural surpluses are developing, the price structure must be brought down so that it will not be necessary for the State to pay such huge amounts in order to subsidize exports. We now have this cry, this statement by the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, that uneconomic units should disappear and that the only solution will be to have fewer farmers on the land. I wonder whether the Minister was correctly reported as having said that and whether he really meant that there should be fewer farmers on the land. There should be more farmers on the land. Not only are there uneconomic units but there are also uneconomic units due to the fact that they are hopelessly too large and cannot be properly farmed.

The Minister also says that.

The Minister also said that the agricultural potential has practically been exploited to its fullest extent. We have not even scraped the surface of the soil, Sir, and those who have not yet had the privilege of travelling overseas and who have not yet seen what they are doing in Italy, in Lebanon, in Cyprus, do not know what they are talking about. There they have mountain ranges, similar to ours along the coast as far as Swaziland, a terrace 6,000 ft. high. They produce on every inch of land and where there are rocks they cover them with soil. The Minister must not say that our agricultural potential has been exploited to the full. That is nonsense. The agricultural potential of this country is limitless, but he requires a multitude of farmers to exploit it and a multitude of technical assistants to give guidance and financial assistance.

I want to return for a moment to the meat scheme. I think the Minister will agree that as long as this industry is controlled by the present board, composed as it is, where the members never agree on any recommendation which they want to make to the Minister, that industry will struggle. We have lost all hope for the meat scheme. I think the Minister has also lost all hope and all the farmers opposite as well. I contend that as long as the board consists of 23 members, where the producers seldom agree because the views of many are influenced by the interests of those concerns on which they serve as directors, that Meat Board will not be a success. It will function properly when it is reduced to a board similar to some of our control boards on which not so many diverse interests are represented. Approximately 14 different interests are represented on the Meat Board. In this instance, as in so many other instances, the Minister uses the board as a smoke screen and the few recommendations which they do still make he turns down. I referred to the permit scheme the other day and the Minister again said to-day that he did not know whether the permit scheme would work. I do not know how the Minister can use that argument; if a neighbouring state has a permit scheme according to which animals are sent to the market and according to which you have to take your turn three or four months beforehand otherwise you forfeit it, and if you do not do so you are penalized by having to take your place at the end of the queue. That country has export contracts and two years ago it had four simultaneously, inter alia, one with Israel and one with Egypt. Many of us marketed our stock and we had to say four months in advance when we intended to market our stock. You have to submit your allocation and if you do not do so you forfeit your turn and you have to take your place at the end of the queue. How is it possible for the Minister to say that the permit system will not work here when he knows that a small country like New Zealand which exports a great quantity of meat, a country which fulfils contracts and where the farmer has to reserve his turn six months beforehand has one. What other methods are there whereby the supply to the market can be controlled? The permit system has been suspended, not abolished, according to the Minister. The Minister should tell me if there are other methods bar these two alternatives, you either take the stock at any time when they are fat and you store the carcasses in storage facilities—facilities which he says neither the State nor the industry have—and if you cannot do that you should control the supply to the market in a different way, otherwise you will come to grief. The Minister himself admits that the quota system cannot work. He is on the defensive at the moment and says the agents should also do something, they should control the quota system. But the quota system does not work and the Minister knows it. What else, other than a permit system, will work in order to control the supply? Must we also throw the meat industry to the wolves? It has been thrown to the wolves long ago and we no longer know what to suggest because nothing is accepted. The more members on the Government side try to defend the agricultural policy of this Minister, the more they say that everything is right and that there is nothing wrong with agriculture, the better it suits this side of the House because the sooner will they be overthrown as a Government. Agriculture will break them.

Mr. Speaker, the present debate is usualy regarded as one of our important debates. It is not always that we have so much that is comical in this debate as we have had to-day. After the capable and effective way in which my colleague, Minister Uys, has replied to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, I do not intend dealing with the details which he raised during his speech and to which one could perhaps reply more fully. But I have said that this debate is characterized by its comic aspect. There have already been quite a few jokes. We have had three Opposition speakers who have criticized our agricultural policy, but despite the distasteful things they have said about the two Ministers of Agriculture and their competence or incompetence, they differ greatly amongst themselves, and I think they also differ regarding that one remark because one of the main points made by the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) was that the farmers are not in a sound economic position and that this is due to the fact that their prices are not realistic, but too low, and that their costs of production have risen so greatly that at the present price levels they cannot make an economic living. But the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) who has actually been brought here and has been selected to strengthen the agricultural representation in the United Party, has said: “No, the main sin committed by this Government has been that prices are too high, and this has so greatly encouraged inflation that the price of land has risen so much that this is the difficulty facing the farmers.” He has said that unduly high prices have caused the difficulties of the farmers. The other two speakers, whom I regard as more authoritative in this field than the hon. member for East London (City), have adopted quite a different attitude, an attitude which is in direct contradiction to the attitude he has adopted. I think the hon. member has been away from his farm and engaged on social services also affecting agriculture for too long with the result that he has lost contact with the actual practical problems of agriculture to such an extent that he cannot make a productive contribution to an agricultural debate. The hon. member for Drakensberg has said that Minister Uys has let the cat out of the bag. I think the biggest pig in the poke (kat in die sak) which any political party has ever bought is the hon. member for East London (City). [Laughter.]

I should like to reply to the question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition regarding what I said in Kimberley. When one examines the newspaper reports, one finds that the last sentence—I have no fault to find with the others—is to the effect that I said that the only solution would be to have a smaller percentage of farmers on the platteland. I did not have that speech written out so that I could give it to the newspapers or the radio. There were reporters present and they submitted their reports, and they reported that I had said that this was the only solution, which I definitely did not say, but I shall say presently what I did say and I have said this before as well. It was also incorrectly reported then, and I corrected it in the newspapers, but people believe what they want to believe, as the hon. member for Drakensberg has done. She always says what she feels the Minister should have said, and then she knocks down the skittles which she herself has put up. At Kimberley I discussed inter alia certain problems facing the agricultural industry which should receive attention and inter alia I dealt with this much-discussed problem relating to the ownership of land, namely that the excessive ownership of land, in other words, the sister of big land barons, definitely constituted a problem and could create evils in this country which should be countered. But this is a problem which, even if the State does not take any concrete steps to solve, is a problem which in practice will diminish and will gradually solve itself. In other words, this is not such a serious problem, and I want to substantiate what I said on that occasion by quoting this fact, namely that the over-extensive or uneconomic utilization which must accompany excessive land ownership practically no longer exists in our country. In addition I said that the total agricultural potential of the country was not fully utilized to-day, but was in effect fully occupied. In other words, there are not thousands of morgen of agricultural land in the Republic which are still in the hand of one or more owners. But I said there was a second problem namely of unduly small farmers, in other words, uneconomic ownership of land, and this varied from area to area and region to region, depending on the rainfall and farming practices. An unduly small farm which is uneconomic, is not necessarily a unit which is inefficiently managed, because no matter how efficiently it is run, if it is an uneconomic unit, it simply means that the person concerned cannot make a proper livelihood on it. There are many such farms. I do not want to go into the causes. This is a real problem because if the State does not do anything about this, the position will also remedy itself in the course of time because those people must inevitably fall by the way-side, but such a natural process whereby the problem will be eliminated is always accompanied by great suffering and loss of manpower because it results in bankruptcy and before the farmer on an uneconomic unit leaves his farm he must first suffer greatly and it is usually his creditors who force him into bankruptcy. In the meantime he does not provide properly for his wife and family. He could not give them the proper training nor pay for their studies. We all know of the many good brains in our country which have been lost in this way because their potential value to the country in the shape of the service they could render has been reduced because they are not properly qualified for the task which awaits them. I then said that we could solve this problem by consolidation, but consolidation did not always mean a reduction in the number of farmers. It is a gradual process, and we still have sufficient scope for water storage in various parts of the country, as the Orange River Scheme has once again proved, in terms of which at least 12,000 to 15,000 more intensive irrigation farmers can under this one scheme be established on the land. When we think of the fact that in addition there are about 40,000 morgen of irrigable land which is not fully occupied, as a result of irrigation schemes which have been improved and enlarged in recent years and which have brought new land under irrigation—I shall only refer to a few. I am thinking of the Sand-Vet Scheme, which will place approximately 16,000 morgen of new land under irrigation. I am thinking of the Kouga Scheme, which will place between 7,000 and 10,000 morgen of new land under irrigation, not to mention the improved and more assured provision of water which will be effected, and the areas which can now be more heavily populated than before because the water supply is assured and which can absorb such people who love farming but have failed in farming elsewhere. There is a difference between less farmers and a lower percentage of farmers in the population. There was a time when 40 per cent of our population were farmers. Is it wrong that there are now only 18 per cent? Was that an undesirable development? It was not wrong. Nor was this development directed along those lines by the actions of any Government, but it was the economic laws of the time which adjusted themselves to the circumstances of the time, and it was also the result of the employment opportunities and the relationship between one type of calling and another type of calling, skilled or unskilled. I must now add this. In the future I would rather see a lower percentage than the present 18 per cent of our population on the platteland in preference to a higher percentage, but subject to this proviso: The smaller percentage of farmers on the platteland, of the population on the platteland, must then be in a position to make a decent living. Because, when viewed on a broad national basis, economically sound and progressive farmers are a far greater asset to the agricultural industry and the nation as well, even if there are slightly fewer of them, when expressed in terms of percentages, in proportion to the total population of the country, than a high percentage of farmers who are living below the breadline. It seems to me that the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) rather enjoys it when I say that. Perhaps he does not agree with what I am saying. But I shall be glad if he will tell me that I am wrong; that he advocates something else, which he cannot do. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that the position in the agricultural industry is that we are not approaching matters realistically; that we are not making the necessary provision for the requirements of the extension services, research and the utilization of the technical and scientific staff of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. My Department, just like other departments and other organizations in our country with scientists and technologists who are highly qualified and specialized, makes the best and fullest use of the services of such scientific staff. I am surprised that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made this allegation. In what condition did the National Party Government receive the scientific section of the Department of Agriculture from the previous Government? The reply will immediately be that there had been a war.

The reply is that you have had 14 years.

But did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party not know at that time that the war could not last forever? Did they not know that they also had a joint responsibility once the war was over—not only while the war was taking place, but when the war was over—in respect of the rebuilding, rehabilitation and employment of the thousands of soldiers who would be returning? They let our agricultural colleges run empty; our universities were empty. In certain fields they said that people who held key posts need not join the army. Those people were given a badge with a red flash which they wore to show that they had joined up, but they made an exception in the case of the agricultural industry; they took some of our best keymen and placed them in less responsible work, less essential work, in the war effort. It does not just take a day to train technologists and scientists. Do hon. members know what other countries of the world say how long it takes to train a highly-specialized and well-qualified scientific research worker?

Seven years.

No, not seven years. It takes the best part of ten years. We set about the task. I now want to ask the Leader of the Opposition: Why would the National Party Government make provision for and agree to the expenditure on the establishment of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, which mainly employs technologists and scientists, being increased this year by R300,00 if we could not prove, not that we would be able to utilize the whole of the R300,000 during one year, but that if we are fortunate we shall require an amount very close to this figure for the strengthening of our establishment, including the increasing of salaries? Our staff position is continually improving and we are now reaping the benefits on a large scale—this was one of the main reasons why the Government has granted its approval—of the schemes which have been progressively introduced by the State as well as by our agricultural marketing boards, such as the Tobacco Research Control Board, the Mealie Board, the Wheat Board, the Citrus Board, each and everyone of which in turn have made bursaries available to us for the training of scientists. These people are now beginning to return in increasing numbers and there is no question of our reducing the bursaries. We shall always have a shortage of staff because the State cannot pay as much as private enterprise. We find that there are organizations which require scientific and agricultural experts but which do not make provision for training. Here I want to mention the fertilizer companies which have now established an association. I told them that I would welcome it if that industry, which employs so many agricultural scientists whom in general we have trained and whom they then later take away from us by making higher offers, would also make a contribution in the shape of bursaries. Then we would not complain so much when we train scientists and also provide their needs, because then we would perhaps do so more readily than we do now.

I might just say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition just referred in conclusion to the Orange River Scheme—I think it was more a friendly gesture than anything else—-and said they had waited 14 years for the Orange River Scheme. I can make another inference, namely that he was very disappointed at the fact that we did not have to wait 30, 40 or 50 years and that 14 years was too short a time …

Do not be childish.

It was no longer ago than 1947, 15 years ago, that the then Leader of the Opposition, General Smuts himself, said the following at Cradock, and he after all was a realistic person; he was a man who could judge the needs of our country; he was a man who surely had a vision of the possible future developments and expansion of this country. What did he say? He said at a public meeting—and hon. members will not deny this: “Look, this is a scheme which will still have to be tackled And do hon. members know to which scheme he was referring? Not to an Orange River Scheme such as the one I am now discussing. He was referring specifically and exclusively to a scheme which would bring the water of the Orange River to the Eastern Cape. That was the Orange River Scheme of that time to which he was referring. [Interjection.] Of course that does not suit the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) because these after all are not facts which he wants one to make known to the public, but that is the position. General Smuts said: “The scheme will have to be built but I shall not see it. My children will not see it. My grandchildren may be the first to see it.” And what is the position to-day? The children of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will see it and his grandchildren will still benefit greatly from it. I now come to the only discordant note which I have heard anywhere regarding this Orange River Scheme, but I think it has resulted more from ignorance and stupidity than from anything else. This discordant note has come from the hon. member for East London (City). He held a meeting somewhere shortly after the announcement of the Orange River Scheme. And does the House know what he said? He said: We are already faced with surpluses and now we are undertaking this scheme which can cause such great surpluses. He also refuses to believe at all that this scheme will be as efficient and practicable as we say it will be until such time as he is given the assurance that we are going to ask Mother England or the Protectorates whether they will allow the water to flow to the republic to make possible the development of this scheme. This is not the only indication of his dependence on the outside world which the hon. member for East London (City) revealed during his speech this afternoon. Even in connection with the utilization of water, the hon. member says that we must go outside the Republic; he says that I must go and see what development there has been in Australia and what development there has been in Lebanon. When he said this, I thought the hon. member was probably thinking of dam-building techniques, but I found later to my surprise that he was not referring to dam-building techniques; he was referring to the various methods of utilizing water to provide for the existing needs of those particular countries. It is clear to me that the hon. member for East London (City) is not an irrigation farmer. He says that our methods for the utilization of water—and he wants us to change this—are such that they encourage the over-production of agricultural products. The methods used for utilizing water in Australia to which he has referred will apparently not do so because for thousands and thousands of miles they take water by means of pipes and / or canals, mainly for drinking purposes; in other words, water for primary or perhaps for tertiary consumption, that is to say for industrial purposes, but not so much for the irrigation purposes to which the hon. member has referred. That is how I understand him. But let us assume that I understood him correctly and that the water is used mainly in the extensive agricultural areas. When that water arrives there, apart from the fact that it will make it possible for stock farming to be practised which is impossible without water, it has this further effect: It makes it possible in such areas where farming is practised, whether it be stock farming or agricultural farming—I am referring to the cultivation of crops—to produce more of the same product because more water is now available. The land can carry more sheep; it can produce more agricultural products. Will this not also contribute towards an increase in agricultural production? And if an increase in our agricultural production is wrong because it results in surpluses, then is not the only solution to send all the water to the Kalahari or certain parts of the North Western Cape where people do not have drinking water …

Who said that it is wrong?

The hon. member has said that this is what we should really do and he has criticized the scheme. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that provision will be made for all the possible requirements which fall within the scope of the scheme—because unlimited distances can of course not be served by the schema—and which can be served economically by this scheme or schemes and/or canals. There is nothing in the scheme to prevent that.

I said that I did not want to criticize the Orange River Scheme but that I wanted to make a plea for the provision of drinking water in the drought-stricken areas of the great North West.

I understood the hon. member. I have said that I am glad he has changed his opinion. He is the only person who has given vent to something of a discordant note but I did not take the hon. member too seriously. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that my Department was already engaged on investigations and surveys even before we announced the Orange River Scheme, and seeing to what extent within economic limits we can provide water, quite apart from the Orange River project, because if the water is too expensive, we cannot do so, as we shall be creating a precedent if we have to subsidize these people to an excessive degree. Then the hon. member would have to tell me where we must draw the line and to which farmers we must provide water by means of a higher subsidy by the State, not in respect of work which such a person is undertaking but actually in respect of State work, which will cost him nothing, in order to make it possible for him to farm. We must therefore keep the economic factor in mind. We must ask ourselves how much that water is going to cost if we take it to a certain area and how many people we can serve. This must all be worked out and planned for and we are engaged on such planning, and we shall certainly go further and extend this type of planning still further.

The hon. member for East London (City) has referred to the question of surplus production, but I want to ask the hon. member whether 12 or 14 years ago there was anyone in this House who knew exactly to what extent consumption of all the various agricultural products in South Africa would increase, and who could prophesy at that stage that there would be such great development; that there would be such an increase in the standard of living that the per capita income of our people and our national income over this period of 14 years under the National Party Government would rise as it has risen? Is there anyone who foresaw this? No, hon. members opposite prophesied when we came into power that the banks would close, that there would be large-scale unemployment. They said that we were finished, that we were destroyed. They firmly believed that an Afrikaans-speaking person could not be appointed as Minister of Economic Affairs because what did the farmers, the Afrikaans-speaking people, know about business? They honestly believed at that time that just as they could only speak English, so we could only speak Afrikaans, and how would we be able to represent South Africa abroad? These were the ghosts which hon. members conjured up at that time, and I am glad that there are hon. members opposite who are now shaking their heads and who find it ridiculous that people could conjure up such ghosts. But I now want to refer them to ghosts which hon. members still conjure up every year as far as South Africa’s future is concerned. When we became a Republic, the same economic ruination was forecast for us. I am thinking for example of the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the evening before the referendum and I am thinking of the speech he made last year before the election. A more scare-mongering type of speech one can hardly imagine, and notwithstanding the lack of faith and of confidence, of vision and of faith in the development potentialities of this country even under a Nationalist régime, our country has developed and grown and our consumption of agricultural products, all agricultural products included, has increased by 69 per cent. I am told that by the year 2000 our population will have doubled. We have seen how the purchasing power of our non-White peoples who hitherto have not played any significant role as consumers of agricultural products, has increased. That is why I am convinced that in planning the Orange River scheme we can make provision on a flexible basis to provide for adjustment to the requirements and needs of the country, to ensure that it will not have a disruptive effect on the country’s economy and particularly on the agricultural economy, but that it will only have a stimulating and strengthening effect. I am convinced that we need not fear that this scheme will encourage surplus production, because it can be adjusted and so planned that it will not have that effect. But our demands for agricultural primary products, for consumer as well as for secondary industrial purposes, may double once again during the next 10, 15 or 20 years, and may do so to an even more marked degree than in the past, because I believe that the development which we have experienced hitherto and particularly in recent years is only the start of a far greater and far stronger development process in the Republic of South Africa. There are certain products in respect of which we have reached the stage in our production and development which may result in our having chronic or permanent surpluses, but the surpluses of other products are in my opinion not of a permanent nature but of a temporary nature. It may take a shorter time or a longer time, but what can one do about surpluses which one produces in one’s own country and for which one has to find a market, whether it be an industrial article, an agricultural article or a mining article. I want to describe a surplus article in the following terms: A surplus article is an article for which one does not have a demand and an adequate market in one’s own country. What is one to do with such an article? There is only one solution; one must export that product; one must sell it to other countries, and if one sells it to other countries, one must bear in mind that one has to take into account the fact that one will have to sell it at prevailing world prices. On the market of such other country we shall have to compete with other countries which also have surplus products which can be unloaded on that country’s market. We shall have to concentrate on the production of quality articles and the production of higher quality articles means inevitably that there must be adjustment, in the sense that adjustment means increased efficiency, the use of improved methods of production, the use of improved stock, the use of improved methods of preserving soil fertility, of improved utilization of the land, the use of the knowledge one acquires through scientific research in one’s own country, and the use of improved plant material. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to follow the hon. the Minister in the line that he has been taking. But I have listened to both Ministers of Agriculture this afternoon and, Sir, what does it all boil down to? It boils down to a sort of sermon by each of the Ministers in turn, each indicating a state of affairs which is building up surpluses of our agricultural products. What are they doing to get markets for us? It is no good their hiding behind boards of various kinds. The boards are not there for Ministers to hide behind. There is this Orange River Scheme, which we will welcome. To do what? To produce a lot more food to add to a surplus which is already so large that we cannot handle it, surpluses which are now becoming a menace to the economy of the farmers in South Africa and threaten to become a menace to the economy of South Africa.

Sir, I do want to say a word to the hon. the Minister of Finance. My hon. Leader dealt here with our position and our markets in the event of Great Britain entering the Common Market and the position vis-à-vis one of our Ministers who is already overseas battling with a very hard task in the interests of our country. My hon. Leader asked what the Government do to help us in this difficulty, and the hon. the Minister of Finance interjected and said “We won’t be getting your help; it won’t be with your help”. Sir, the hon. the Minister has the effrontery to make a remark like that in regard to an issue of that character when he is the Minister who stood up here and assured the House that we were going to remain in the Commonwealth. He was the hon. the Minister who did that. He stood up here and asked us to accept his statement at its face value, laying down the law if we dared to doubt his slightest word, in the most absolute manner, permitting of no doubt whatever that we would remain in the Commonwealth, and the whole position of the South African economy flows from that basic fact ’

Read my speech with the qualification.

Sir, what a characteristic remark from the hon. the Minister of Finance.

There was no qualification whatsoever.

I say that it illbehoved the Minister of Finance to make a remark like that when my hon. Leader was speaking. If South Africa is in the trouble which it seems we may well be in over this question of Britain’s entry into the Common Market, we will all have to lend a hand. That is not party politics either; it is something that applies to all of us, and the hon. the Minister ought to be pleased to accept any hand which is offered to him. He will have damn few hands offering any help to him at all.

With regard to the hon. the Minister who has just sat down, I want to come back to the question of the Hluhluwe water scheme, which I started to deal with on the wrong Vote. I take it that the hon. the Minister is proceeding with the scheme, not as set out in the White Paper but as determined by himself with his Department after the White Paper was shown to be inaccurate. The hon. the Minister says that he is giving this matter reconsideration.

I have given it consideration and I have made my decision and I am going on with the scheme, as I told you.

Sir, I wanted the hon. the Minister to give a decision one way or the other here. I dealt with the manner in which he sent me the information last time. I want just to deal with the White Paper which the Minister put before Parliament and on which the scheme was initiated and the original money voted, because I say that there was not one single important fact in that White Paper which has not in the results been shown to be wrong and more or less wrong. Some of the facts were so completely wrong that it is incredible that a document like that could have been placed before Parliament, on which we were asked to vote a sum of money.

Mention those facts please.

Yes, I am coming to it; the hon. the Minister need not be impatient. I will deal with it step by step. I want to come back to one point that I made in the few minutes when I was speaking on the previous occasion, as to the survey. Sir, the survey was never made by the Departmental officials for the purpose of the White Paper. It was calculated on other plans made by other people. If the hon. the Minister doubts it, then let me read out to him the official reply that he gave to this question in the Other Place—

They took data from the Defence Force map compiled in 1943 and used it as a basis of their plans for 1961—

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, Sir. That fixed point was one mile out of position in regard to an irrigation scheme! What happened thereafter? Is it a wonder that some of the other matters were found to be erroneous? What was found on inquiry? The area taken up in Bantu reserves at its full supply level according to the White Paper was 130 morgen. In fact when the survey was made, it turned out to be 23.6 morgen. The White Paper told us that there were 130 morgen taken up in the Bantu reserves, but when the land was actually surveyed, it was 23.6 morgen.

I want to go further. This dam may wreck the whole ecology of the Hluhluwe Reserve. What is the hon. the Minister so stubborn about? The White Paper said that about 200 morgen would be inundated at full supply level. In fact, when the survey took place, it was 23.6 morgen.

Are you not satisfied that it is so little?

It is no good the hon. the Minister trying to interrupt me like that. I am saying that these were mistakes in the White Paper that he was responsible for. He laid the paper before us. When he found in August last year, by this true survey that mistakes had been made, why did he not have the courage to come back to Parliament and say “That White Paper is completely wrong, it is false, I am coming back to Parliament now to place the true position before Parliament”? Because the Minister found it out in August, last year. He laid the White Paper before us on 3 May, last year, by the end of August he knew it was wrong, he knew what the correct figures were. Mr. Speaker, the first dam to be built on the Hluhluwe River was to cost R80,000.

How big?

That was the first one, to be built by the farmers. It was big enough for the farmers.

Why don’t you tell us the capacity of the dam and everything and how many morgen it would irrigate?

It was big enough for the farmers and for the sugar quotas that they had at that time. I am not going to deal with the sugar quotas that had been given since then, because that Minister is not here, and I am not going to deal with that. But that is what the farmers wanted. It was a scheme that they put up to the Parks Board and the province and they asked whether we had any objections. The matter was discussed and we raised no objections to it. R80,000 and there were 15 farmers. The Minister’s scheme, what will it come to? No less than R1,200,000; the R80,000 for the whole scheme for 15 farmers becomes R80,000 per farmer. Then the White Paper said that approximately 1,000 acres of land could be irrigated in the Native reserves, apart from what the 15 farmers were to get. But when the Minister was asked whether levels had been taken for the purpose of dealing with the 1,000 acres to see whether it could be brought under the influence of the scheme the answer was “No, that is not my business, I leave that to the Bantu Affairs Department The White Paper said that 1,000 acres could be irrigated when they had not even taken the levels.

I am quite certain that you are completely wrong.

I would not be surprised if that Minister believes that he can make water run uphill.

I will make you run up.

I object to that. That is threatening me in Parliament.

You are a funk.

On a point of order, may the hon. the Minister use that expression?

Did the hon. the Minister use that expression?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I said that he was a funk.

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw that.

The hon. the Minister met an official deputation, members of the Executive Committee of the province. In addition to that he kindly met members of the Parks Board and myself at an unofficial meeting, and subsequently at an official meeting. Now I want to make two points. One is that the Minister said that the farms to be brought under the scheme could only be served with the dam at its present site, because the water could not be brought by gravity to the farms if the dam were built at a lower site. Sir, what did the White Paper say? On page 1, paragraph (2), the very last line, it says—

The White Paper did not envisage a scheme by gravity from the dam. I go further, and I quote from the White Paper again (paragraph (5). page 5)—

There was no question of the water going down by gravitation. The water was to be pumped.

When the deputations met the Minister, not only did he make the mistake about irrigating by gravity, but he made a great to-do about the necessity of keeping his own counsel where such irrigation schemes were concerned. And I am sorry to say that by inference, he cast a very grave reflection on members of the Executive Committee of the Province of Natal and on my colleague from the Senate and myself. He said, and he made it abundantly clear, that if knowledge in regard to matters of this kind leaked out in advance, unscrupulous people might take advantage of such knowledge. He said he did not consult with other people in regard to the desirability or otherwise of such schemes. Mr. Speaker, when the White Paper was before us, and the Minister was supporting it, it said this—

He said that the Parks Board was advised of what was happening and that in the main they had raised no objection to what was contemplated. When the hon. the Minister was subsequently asked this year whether the Parks Board had been advised and whether it had approved, he said that the Parks Board had not been advised. When he was asked whether he had consulted with the Parks Board, the answer was “No”. With regard to the first dam, Sir, there was a letter on 24 June 1960 from the Director of Water Affairs saying that the question of water conservation in that area was enjoying the attention of the department, and that that department would do all in its power to prevent the loss of wild life in any form. That was on 24 June 1960. On 5 January 1961 the ex-Director of Water Affairs wrote seeking permission to carry out a survey in the Hluhluwe Game Reserve for “a certain irrigation possibility”. On 11 September 1961, after the survey had been completed in August, the Secretary for Water Affairs wrote thanking us for our assistance to the field party which had been carrying out the survey, and on 25 January this year the Secretary for Water Affairs wrote again asking the Parks Board for permission to carry out further survey work and to clear some bush.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister attempts to throw doubt on the statement that I am making. I had given the hon. the Minister a copy from our official files showing that no less than 44 letters were written to his Department or received from his Department by us and by the farmers’ committee that was established to go on with the project, and so forth. No less than 44 letters are quoted, and I defy the hon. the Minister to show that one of them is erroneous. He has had the opportunity to check up on every one of them. From July 1958 we had been consulted by the farmers’ committee, and been given an opportunity to state our views, and finally, we said to the Minister that his dam would ruin the ecology of the Hluhluwe Game Reserve. And then the Minister said: I am going on with it; I am not going to be dictated to by the Province of Natal. “Of course I have kept my own counsel; of course I have not consulted with anybody; I am not going to let people know these things in advance.” For two years there had been consultation between the Parks Board and the Minister. The Minister cannot deny that. He has the letters in his files. It was simply that he got stubborn, and he had changed the site of the dam. What does the White Paper say in regard to the site of the dam which was to be based on a pumping scheme, not a gravitation scheme? The White Paper says this—

In 1959 the Department of Water Affairs was not in the picture. In 1960 I had an interview with the then Director of Water Affairs, who said that they would not allow any farmers to build a dam on that river, and that, at a later stage, the Department of Water Affairs was going to build a dam. That dam site was the first dam site selected by the farmers. It is the one that is the basis of the White Paper put before us. But that is not the scheme that is going ahead to-day, Sir. The White Paper says: “In 1960 a local investigation of the irrigation possibilities of the Hluhluwe Valley was carried out.”; What investigation? That was the farmers’ investigation I was referring to. It goes on: “In addition foundation drilling at the proposed dam site was begun in 1960” (by the farmers) “and sufficient information has already been collected to indicate that the site is suitable for the construction of the proposed dam wall.” Mr. Speaker, this scheme was to cost R80,000 to supply 15 farmers. It was their scheme, and they found a site which was suitable to carry the dam; the foundations were tested, and they were found to be all right. The Minister’s Department came subsequently and, to get 25 morgen of land, inundated for approximately four miles back up the river, they increased the cost from R80,000 to R1,200,000, to supply 15 farmers, and a nebulous amount of land in the Native area that has not yet been surveyed, and there is nothing to show whether land there will come under the influence of this scheme or not. For 50 acres of land we are going to inundate and possibly destroy, the ecology of our reserve for a distance of four miles up the river! We rely on the winter grazing there for the game in our reserves. We say categorically, as a result of a survey that we have carried out in regard to siltation, that, within the first few years, that 25 morgen in the reserve, the four miles, instead of having great water holes which remain there during the winter months, it will be all silted up, and it will be simply a mud-trap for thirsty animals which seek to get in there to try and get at the water. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has now struck up a friendship with all kinds of hon. members on his side of the House, with whom he is having discussions, most important discussions, no doubt. Sir, it is ordinary courtesy in this House, when you are addressing yourself to a Minister, that the Minister gives you the opportunity to do so.

I say in regard to what is taking place that it is a crying shame, and it is a bitter reproach to the Minister personally that he is allowing his personal stubbornness to go on with a scheme which he knows will be the undoing of such a vast natural asset as we have in the Hluhluwe Game Reserve. Sir, the whole of the water supply in that eastern area will be affected. For thousands and thousands of acres no other water is available, and it has been calculated that a drop of 25 feet in the water level there during the dry months will turn the whole of that stretch into a desolate mud stretch, where the poor animals will be trapped when they try to get to the water. If they try and push on down to where the water is, they get outside the reserve, and they go into that Native area where we have continuous trouble with poachers, and there will be endless slaughtering of animals.

Sir, the Hluhluwe Game Reserve is second only as a tourist attraction to the Kruger Park in South Africa. The hon. the Minister knows that. The Railway Administration advertises it overseas. It is advertised throughout the world. The Board does not spend one penny to advertise the Hluhluwe Game Reserve, because the people who come there in their thousands every year, are the best advertisement we can possibly have. But the Minister goes on with it. The Parks Board now is having an ecological survey of the effect that this dam is going to have, not only on the Hluhluwe Game Reserve, but, in addition, on the False Bay area, which other rivers run into, and where the salinity can be built up to a point where it will be the death-knell of the fish in that area. The whole of that vast salt river lake, the biggest in the Republic, 52 miles long, is kept at a degree of salinity which will maintain the marine life only because it is continually diluted by the fresh waters of the rivers that flow into it, and with these big dams being erected on the river—this is the first of several that are to come, and which have already been forecast—we say that there must now be a full ecological survey, not only in respect of the Hluhluwe Reserve and the effect on this river, but in regard to the whole of the fresh water system, the feeding system to False Bay and the whole area, so that perchance we don’t lose that great asset because of short-sighted action, damming up the fresh water which is so necessary to go down and dilute that water. I may say, Sir, that a matter of about 15 or 16 years ago, when we had a series of three or four bad drought years, the fresh water running into St. Lucia, into the False Bay lake system, was so reduced that evaporation at the top end of the lake reduced that water at mean level to four feet below sea level. The salt water from the sea was running in and out all the time, whether the tide was going in or out to the sea, it continued to run 24 hours into that lake system because the water level was so low, and the result: The salinity was built up to such a point that it killed every fish and living thing and weed and grass and every single bit of vegetation that existed in those upper lakes. It is to prevent such a thing happening again that the Parks Board has now initiated this particular ecological inquiry. I plead with the hon. the Minister not to let his own personal feeling stand in the way of the interests of South Africa. Reinvestigate the whole thing in co-operation with the Provincial Administration. This Government appointed the Administrator in Natal. Let him go and have a talk with the Administrator in Natal. Let him co-operate with his own Administrator if the Minister does not want to talk with me. Review the matter from the point of view of the longer-term interest of South Africa. Is he going to destroy the ecology of the game reserve to get 25 morgen of extra land flooded? It is heartbreaking for anybody who is trying to preserve our wild life in South Africa that such a thing can be contemplated. For the sake of what? For the sake of providing a little extra water to people who are already satisfied with the R80,000 scheme—their own scheme.

I must correct the hon. member. The “25” is a misprint, it should read “52 morgen”.

There you are, now it is a misprint. But in any case what matters is that in the White Paper it was stated as 200 morgen, now it is 52 morgen. That does not matter. Are we for the sake of 100 acres of land which will be inundated going to destroy the amenities there which are so important from the point of view of tourism?

I don’t agree that that is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tragedy, an absolute tragedy! I hope that the hon. the Minister will halt and reconsider this particular operation.

In the very little time still left to me, I want to deal with another matter. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to deal with this matter, because it concerns his colleague who is overseas, the Minister of Economic Affairs, and it concerns both Ministers of Agriculture and it is this. We have now owing to the limitation on the supply of sugar cane to the mills through the quota system reached the stage where many thousands of acres of land are going out of sugar production. I know of one big estate that is putting 1,000 acres a year under eucalyptus for the purposes of milling by Saicor. That one estate alone is ripping out 1,000 acres of sugar cane a year under a five-year plan. That is merely one case. But there are thousands of acres going the same way. Mr. Speaker, the sugar cane lands in Natal and Zululand are some of the most highly fertile in the whole of the Republic, and the point I want to make is this: They are in an area where the normal rainfall is adequate for most purposes, between 30 and 40 inches per annum, and, Sir, the fertile soil of the Republic is one of our greatest assets. Not only is that soil fertile, but surveys from time to time have shown that in the whole of the agricultural industry, no branch of the agricultural industry is creating and putting back greater fertility in the soil than it is taking out other than the sugar industry. The industry is not robbing the soil. There are areas where 20 tons per acre were produced 15 years ago, which are producing 50 tons per year to-day. The fertility is growing continuously. And I repeat that fertile soil is one of our greatest assets, and we have to protect it for our people. As the years go we will want that soil. But, Sir, it is no good just using that fertile soil to produce more foodstuffs and putting them into markets which already are carrying huge surpluses. The point I want to make is whether the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues will not see whether it is possible to give advice to those people who are proposing to go out of sugar because of the pressure of the quota system. It may well be that if the people in authority who have got the knowledge are satisfied that within the next few years the quota system will either be completely modified or abolished, and that sugar cane can again be produced there. Then, Sir, what a tragedy if in the meantime it is put under long-term things like eucalyptus and coffee and things like that, which then cannot be taken out to allow the soil to revert to the purpose for which it was primarily developed.

Why not coffee?

I was a coffee-grower. I don’t want to go into details now, but we have seen what has happened to coffee all over the world. There is a world surplus.

We are still importing large quantities of coffee.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be led off the trail, but I will simply say this that coffee has got its own diseases that we could never cope with in the olden days, and people suffered huge losses. My father was one of them. Sir, that land in my opinion should not be put under crops of a permanent character, but should be used for annuals. If there is a crop that can be grown and reaped annually, so that the soil remains available for sugar if the quota system is ever modified, well and good. We do not want the soil lying there barren, fallow, but it can be highly dangerous for farmers at the present time who are trying to get a cash crop to come into the market with perhaps a huge amount—because it is a question of thousands of acres—a huge amount of foodstuffs where the market is already glutted. Sir, they should be given advice, and I hope a survey will be made with the intention of giving advice to those farmers on whom the quota system is pressing. It is quite possible that if the quota system is modified in a few years ahead of us, those farmers will be the first to get back the quota they have lost. Sir, that soil is very fertile. Markets for the time being are being denied us, but in time people will find new markets. I am not losing faith over this. Let the Government give these people the right advice and tell them what crops they should go in for, without going in for crops which will tie up their lands for 10, 15, 30 years. The same difficulty of course arises in regard to the big scheme on the Makatini Flats, the Pongola-Makatini Scheme, on which the Government is spending R32,000,000. The plan was designed for sugar-growing. It is being held up and a survey is being made to see what crops can be grown there economically. It is part of the overall picture, and the Government must not discriminate between Government-owned land and private-owned land. That fertile soil is our heritage. Let us protect it and put it to the best possible use. Let a committee be appointed and give advice to the people concerned.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has fared even worse than his Leader. The present Session is now running to its end. We have sat here for six months and the people of South Africa have waited for certain statements, for a review of important matters of policy and of international affairs; they waited for the Prime Minister to make a statement, but what have we had from the Opposition during this important debate? Nothing! And I am saying this deliberately because only a few days ago we discussed two agricultural Votes in Committee of Supply. In addition we have had two major agricultural motions before us which gave the United Party the opportunity to submit an alternative agricultural policy and to submit constructive criticism of the agricultural policy of the Government. During this debate we expected the Opposition to place international affairs under the spotlight, but no! It is because they are bankrupt that they did not do so.

I want to go further and to tell those members of the United Party who are members of the agricultural group and have participated in the agricultural debates of this Session as such, that they have failed in the eyes of their own Leader. Their own leader is convinced that they have performed so poorly that he has considered it necessary to make an attack on the agricultural policy of the Government during this debate. If their leader had considered that they had done their duty towards the agricultural industry of South Africa, then he would not have considered it necessary to introduce this amendment to-day. I thought that he would also take the opportunity to welcome the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) as a member of his Party. In the newspapers however I see a " swop " column and I do not know whether the hon. member has swopped Helen for Sannie and can now no longer be welcomed! The hon. member for South Coast however has committed a greater sin than that to which I have already referred, and this he has done by devoting his attention to local matters tonight. While we are holding a debate on matters affecting the country as a whole, the hon. member for South Coast has confined himself to conditions at Hluhluwe! This is surely a matter which he could have discussed on the Minister’s Vote or on the Loan Vote. Moreover his facts are wrong as well! He has compared the areas provided for in the White Paper and the areas as determined after inquiry. And this he has done while he should have known that the 135 morgen was based on an estimate. He has also said that the Department of Water Affairs did not institute an investigation in loco. His information in this regard is not correct. On 29 April 1957, the farmers of that area asked for the establishment of a local irrigation committee and also that their scheme should be drawn up. On 19 March 1958, that committee asked for the construction of the dam to be accelerated. The committee then appointed Professor Vorster of the University of Pretoria as consultant. This professor submitted his technical report to the Department of Water Affairs on 3 June 1959. On 14 August 1959, the engineers of the Department of Water Affairs instituted an investigation in loco to study conditions there. I also find that on 14 October 1959, an inter-departmental committee, consisting of representatives of the Department of Lands, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Department of Water Affairs, was appointed to investigate this scheme in loco and to study conditions. This inter-departmental committee submitted its report on 4 April 1960. Consequently the hon. member’s facts were not correct. I now want to submit that if he wants to build up a case and the facts which he submits are not correct his whole case collapses. I feel that his whole case regarding the dam at Hluhluwe has collapsed.

The whole thing does look very suspicious!

These are the facts and nevertheless the hon. member for South Coast says that no departmental investigation was instituted. I have given the House the various dates on which investigations were in fact held.

But there is another matter which the hon. member has raised and which I want to discuss. In this regard I think the hon. member has succeeded in making out a case. I am referring to the sugar quotas of the sugar farmers. I am very glad to be able to say that the hon. member in this instance has taken positive action and has put matters in the correct perspective. He has not made an attack, because, as we all do, he knows the sugar farmers have asked that a quota should be laid down for them in order to protect them. I agree with the hon. member for South Coast in this regard. I believe that the Government will have the necessary investigation instituted and will take steps to advise the farmers there to plant annuals instead of gums, in other words, will advise them how to utilize their lands profitably without causing over-production so that when they eventually want to commence the production of sugar—and we believe that they will be able to do so—the soil will still be suitable for this purpose. As I have already said, I think the hon. member has made out a case here.

I should now like to deal with the other allegations which have been made. I am sorry the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) is not here. He has said that the members of the Meat Board can never reach agreement regarding recommendations which have to be made and this is because 23 members serve on the board and they represent various interests and undertakings. I want him to tell the South African Agricultural Union and the farmers that he does not want producers to be represented on the board, or if not, he must say that commerce, or the butchers, or the consumers, or the hide and skin processors should not be represented. Does he want the Marketing Act to be dismantled? Did the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Swart) not make it quite clear the other day that the Marketing Act had complied with certain tests? The Meat Board is one of the sub-divisions of the Marketing Act and is so constituted that the meat industry can be controlled and protected as a whole. Because he has had a disagreement on the Meat Board with Neels Visser and they then threw him out, as he has been thrown out of the Wool Board, he should not come to this House and build up a case against the Meat Board by advocating the drawing up of a different constitution. He knows that such a suggestion is in direct conflict with the Marketing Act. He has said that the permit system has failed, but he nevertheless wants the Minister to reintroduce this system. Is he then not the person who at a certain congress of the National Woolgrowers ' Association kept the Meat Board occupied for a whole day in an attempt to prove that the permit system could never solve this problem? Because before the permit system was abolished, we had an unrestricted flow. But he has forgotten this and he is now asking that the system should be reintroduced.

But he has also tried to bring this House under an incorrect impression. He has stated that the farmers in Canada are now receiving so much for their wheat while the South African farmers are receiving less. But why does he not also say that in Canada the domestic price of wheat is far lower than the price which can be obtained externally? Why does he not also say that the producer in Canada receives less than the amount for which Canada can sell wheat? Why does he not also say that the farmers receive part of the profits made on the sale of wheat abroad? In South Africa we have a shortage of wheat and consequently still have to import wheat. When we made a profit on the export of our products, the United Party paid that profit into the Treasury. In Canada however the farmers are paid part of the profits when profits are made on the export of a particular product. Those profits are not paid into the Treasury.

I shall return later to the remarks made by the hon. member regarding our dairy production. At this stage there is another matter which I should like to make clear. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) alleges that the Government regards the small and the inefficient farmer as one and the same thing. The hon. member for East London (City) has said this as well. By saying this, they are accusing this Government of wanting less farmers on the platteland. But let us see how many farmers this Government has placed on the land during the 14 years of its régime, and how many were established as such in the preceding 38 years. The fact of the matter is that this Government, under Sections 20 and 23 of the Settlements Act, has restored four times as many Whites to the platteland as was the position during the 38 years which elapsed before this Government came into power. And these were not only soldiers. In addition, the Government has announced the Orange River scheme, which will make provision, not only for industrial development, but also for the establishment of additional farmers on settlements. This is clear proof that the Government believes that our platteland must be populated, and that, with this aim in mind, we must place more farmers on the platteland. This being so, why have hon. members made such an incorrect allegation?

The hon. member for Drakensberg, like the hon. member for East London (City), and, to a certain extent, the Leader of the Opposition, has alleged that the Government has ignored organized agriculture, and has tried to substantiate this allegation by quoting the mealie price. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition is not here. He moved this amendment, and now he is not here to hear our answers to the unfounded allegations which he has made! So little is he interested in this debate! He moves an amendment, but then he disappears, and we do not see him again!

Where is the Minister!

The hon. member for Florida said the other day, quite correctly, that the Marketing Act had stood the test of whether it could protect the consumer, and that this Act had stood that test particularly during the régime of the United Party, and particularly at the time when we had shortages, with the result that a member, who was in this House at that time, even had to smuggle a leg of meat! Then the Marketing Act protected the consumer at the expense of the producer. The hon. member for Florida stated that the Marketing Act had answered its purpose in this respect. This is the Act which they placed on the Statute Book with the wholehearted support of the National Party—the then Opposition. To-day, however, the Leader of the United Party says that we cannot apply the Act. He says that we should not have these various methods of price determination, and that the Minister should not differentiate between the method used in fixing the price of mealies and the method used in fixing the price of sugar, bananas, etc., but that he should use the same method in all cases. I now want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he is not going to expel the hon. member for Florida from his caucus? The hon. member for Florida has said, after all, that the Marketing Act is the Act in terms of which this control should be applied, and that orderly marketing to the benefit of both the consumer and the producer can be assured under this Act. But here his Leader has come and rejected his contention—four days after he made it in this House.

I want to say this. The South African Agricultural Union, which is the mouthpiece of the farmer, has asked that we should keep the Stabilization Fund for mealies at the same level. To do so—so it was stated before the Select Committee—it is necessary that certain price determination methods should be applied, namely the cost of production plus the entrepreneur’s wage. Do hon. members want us to rob the Stabilization Fund so that there will be nothing in this fund next year?

What about the surpluses?

The surpluses will be borne by this Stabilization Fund. The surpluses will therefore be marketed to the advantage of the farmer. Hon. members however do not want a Stabilization Fund. They want the surpluses to be made the responsibility of the farmers. The Government is even prepared, in order to keep the Stabilization Fund in a sound position, to pay a subsidy so that the fund will have the necessary money available. The hon. member for Drakensberg and the hon. the Leader for the Opposition must not come here and say that the Government is rejecting the producer. The hon. member for Drakensberg has said that the cat has thereby been let out of the bag. But this Government is a friend of both the consumer and the producer and in terms of the Marketing Act will make proper provision for both these aspects of our national economy. For this reason the Government also enjoys the support of the consumer and the producer on every occasion. It is because both the consumer and the producer are confident that they will receive the necessary protection under this Government.

But the United Party have tried to repudiate the Act which they themselves placed on the Statute Book. They have repudiated the Marketing Act to-night. I now want them to tell the South African Agricultural Union that they, that is to say the United Party, no longer have any faith in the control board system. Let us analyse the position. The hon. member for East London (City) has criticized us for not having quotas in respect of our butter exports, and also because we did not sell butter to England two years ago. Do hon. members not know that every country’s quota in respect of a specific product is based on the quantity of that product which has been exported in preceding years? During the preceding four years we did not sell any butter to Britain, but Australia, New Zealand and Canada did deliver butter to Britain. And hon. members now want us, while we did not deliver any butter to Britain during the preceding four years, also to be granted a quota in competition with countries which did in fact export to that country. Hon. members say that it is because we are out of the Commonwealth that we cannot obtain a quota. The fact of the matter is however that we have not received a quota because we did not supply butter to Britain during the preceding years.

Let us review the production position in South Africa. During 1958-9 South Africa had to import 3,780,000 lb. of butter and during 1959-60 3,472,000 lb. We therefore had to import approximately 7,000,000 lb. of butter during those two years!

Poor administration!

The hon. member over there says “poor administration”. But I am certain that he would not be able to tell a cow from a bull! If he were to enter a kraal, he would milk the bull instead of the cow! In any case, whereas we only produced 44,000,000 lb. of butter in 1940, we produced 114,500,000 lb. of butter in 1961-2 and 118,750,000 lb. in 1961-62. With the assistance of technical service.sound administration, and the assistance of the farmers it has taken the Government this short period to increase our production of butter to such an extent that we no longer need to import butter. And now the hon. member for East London (City)—the Wise Man from the East—expects that we should obtain a quota for exporting butter to Britain and this while we have not supplied any butter to that country! He must not talk nonsense (wol) in this House if he knows nothing about butter.

In addition the Government is not sitting idle now that we are faced with over-production. We had a Stabilization Fund of R10,000, but this fund has been greatly reduced as a result of over-production. At present, however, the position is that while we had 25,000,000 lb. on hand in March 1961, we only had 20,000,000 lb. on hand in March 1962, and this notwithstanding increased production. This 20,000,000 lb. of butter can be consumed in 11 weeks and it therefore does not create such a tremendous problem. Why do we have this relatively favourable position? Because the Government immediately took steps to increase local consumption. The Government has also succeeded in increasing local consumption by 7.5 per cent which has brought local consumption to a total of 6,000,000 lb. In addition the Bantu markets are being developed and very good progress has been made in this respect; as a matter of fact, to such an extent that in April we were able to increase the weekly consumption from 8,304 lb. to 11,340 lb. The Government has therefore taken the necessary steps to remedy the position in respect of dairy production, just as in respect of other products.

I now just want to express a final thought regarding price stabilization. Hon. members, inter alia the hon. member for East London (City) as well, have discussed wheat, However, they know that the agricultural union for the wheat regions has already been asking for two or three years for a review of the costs of production. This review has already taken place and it shows that there has been a reduction of 13.5 cents per bag in the costs of production. But despite these reduced costs of production, and despite the fact that in the case of certain other products there is tremendous over-production, hon. members opposite say that the price of wheat should be increased! This is after all a false promise to the voters. It has always been accepted that under the Marketing Act prices are fixed on the basis of the costs of production plus an entrepreneur's wage. If the costs of production have now fallen, then we must after all take into account the possibility of a reduction in prices. We cannot increase the wheat farmer’s entrepreneur's wage while the entrepreneur’s wage of other producers is declining still further! No, Mr. Speaker—hon. members opposite are trying to catch some votes as a result of circumstances prevailing in the agricultural industry. We admit that tremendous problems are facing the agricultural industry. We know that not all our farmers are doing well and also that the position is not good in all regions. The United Party is preying like a vulture on the little dissatisfaction which exists and which has arisen as a result of climatic conditions and world trends. A party which acts in this way remains a dead party. The situation which has arisen has not arisen as a result of poor administration or poor control, but in certain areas as a result of droughts and in others as a result of uneconomic sub-division. A party which preys on this type of thing is a party which is gradually dying. Such a party cannot make any positive suggestions.

The hon. member for East London (City) has done a very strange thing. He and other members have risen and said that during the years 1945-8 the Secretary for Agriculture repeatedly said that prices should not be allowed to rise because the price of land would be forced up unduly as a result. The hon. member now maintains that it is because the farmers received so much for their products that one has to pay R200 per morgen for mealie land. In other words, a member of the United Party, a party which is courting the farmers’ votes so vigorously, tells the farmers that it is because they have always been paid so much for their products that the price of land is now so high. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker! The one group are complaining that the farmers are being paid too little and that they are going to go bankrupt; on the other hand their main speaker, whom they regard as a Wise Man from the East, says: “Oh no! The farmer in South Africa has been paid too much for his products and that is why the price of land is so high”;. He tells the farmers, in other words, that if the United Party had been in power during the past 14 years, they would have been paid less for their mealies, wheat, fruit, etc.! This is the only conclusion which one can draw.

The same hon. member has said that as a result of the ley-crop scheme the farmers are now receiving less than before. Is he then a stranger in Jerusalem? Does he not know that the ley-crop scheme was introduced in order to increase soil fertility? Does he not know that it was introduced so that when the farmer’s grain crops failed, he could have another income, that is to say, from his stock.

I want to give an excellent example, and this example is provided by our immediate vicinity. During the past seven years the quantity of wool delivered to the Cape Town Docks has risen by exactly double. Why? Because the farmers are using lupins to integrate stock into their crops—in other words, they are receiving an income not only from wheat, etc., but also from woolled sheep. And yet the hon. member—the Wise Man from the East—says that the farmer is being paid less!; No, Mr. Speaker, hon. members must not discuss agricultural matters because they know too little about them. There is another aspect of the matter which I want to emphasize. When the farmer could have received far more for his products abroad during the régime of the United Party than is the position to-day, the United Party paid the resultant profits into the Treasury. It was, in other words, at that time concerned about the taxpayer and wanted the taxpayer to pay as little as possible in tax. But to-day, however, they say that we should subsidize products, but when we ask them whether the necessary funds should come from the taxpayer, they do not know!

We can only subsidize agricultural products by means of additional taxation. That being so, the United Party must therefore openly advocate increased taxes if it wants these products to be subsidized. In addition, hon. members must publicly state that the Marketing Act should be repealed. The reason for our difficulties is not to be found with the Marketing Act or over-production. Our difficulty is that we have a United Party which just preys on complaints and failures and cannot submit anything positive. If the United Party would submit a proposal to the effect that we should investigate the Marketing Act to see whether we cannot give the Marketing boards the necessary control powers in order to effect certain economies in distribution, they would be doing something positive. If they would say: Let us investigate the Marketing Act in an attempt so to arrange matters that South Africa will not have specialized shops, and so that we shall save on distribution costs, or so that we can arrange for differentiated prices for the man who buys for cash and the man who buys on credit, so that the consumer can derive the benefit because a shop sets aside 15 per cent and 20 per cent in respect of its accounting system which could be saved with a cash system, and it sets aside 10 per cent in respect of its delivery system, which could also be saved if the customer buys directly. If they would make such suggestions, I would say that they are making positive proposals in order to help the farmer and the consumer. But no, they do not do so. Our problem in South Africa is that we have a United Party which has lost contact with agricultural industry and with the consumer, and is now courting the votes of both—to-day the vote of the farmer and to-morrow the vote of the consumer—with the result that they are always falling between two stools.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) started his speech by criticizing the Opposition for not conducting this debate in the sphere of international affairs. On that I would like to make two suggestions to him. The first is that he should remember that this is only the first half-day of this debate and that our leader moved an amendment which has three legs, the first of which deals with agriculture, the second with the ordinary family in South Africa, and the third by the image of South Africa created in the world by this Government. As the hon. member admitted, in the very nature of his speech, we have been discussing to-day only the agricultural leg of our amendment. So his challenge was completely unfounded, wrong, and without justification.

Sir, I would like to speak on the second leg of the amendment, but before I do so I think it is only right that I should say something about the Minister of Water Affairs and his attitude to the Orange River scheme. It is common knowledge that we of the Opposition welcome the gigantic scheme for the development of the Orange River as announced by the Government. We are eager that they should go ahead with that scheme. We shall watch their progress and we shall not hesitate to criticize if that progress is too slow, or if it is not what people have been led to expect. We do not have much confidence in this Government to implement that scheme. The one question which the Minister of Water Affairs has not answered, although he spoke for his full 40 minutes, and which he should answer at the very first opportunity that offers, is when did he and his Government become converted to the Orange River scheme? How many times did the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) have to move private motion after motion and raise the matter year after year and debate it under the Vote of the Minister before he could persuade the Minister that this was a good scheme?

To which scheme are you referring?

I see the Minister is becoming coy. On 13 March 1959 not so long ago, the hon. member for Albany asked for the Orange River scheme, and particularly for something to be done to relieve the unhappy fate of the settlers under irrigation in the Fish River Valley. The Minister damned that scheme and told the House and the country that this idea of diverting the water of the Orange River from a barrage near Bethuli and through a 51 miles long tunnel was utterly impracticable. The reason the hon. the Minister gave was that it would be too expensive. The Minister told us that everything had become more expensive, that we of the United Party thought that this scheme would cost £18,000,000 but that afterwards Mr. Strijdom revised the Estimate to £40,000,000, and then his Department revised it to £70,000,000. The Minister explained so much more. He said that everything had gone up in price. He said, in Hansard, Col. 259—

[Laughter.] I thought the trouble of the Government was only mental constipation. [Laughter.] The Minister went on, and this was his attitude to one small part of the Orange River scheme at the time. He said—

Then he went on to show that this scheme would cost more than £1,000 a morgen. I think the House should note that. In Col. 2511 he said—

That is a remarkable statement by the Minister. When did he become converted? I have a suggestion later to make to the Minister. In Col. 2512 he said—

Yet the plan the Minister gave us in the beginning of the Session to irrigate the Fish River Valley is in essence the same plan as the Conroy plan.

Does the hon. member know that whereas that single scheme would have cost £1,000 a morgen, with this new planning in its multiplicity, which will also bring the water to certain land, will cost an average of only £375 a morgen?

I want to thank the Minister for the information he gave me. It was my intention to ask the Minister to tell the House how much less his scheme will cost than the Conroy scheme. He now gives us the figure of £375 a morgen, which is of course a ridiculous figure, and I will tell you why. The dam at Bethuli is shifted slightly towards Norvalspont, but the tunnel of 51 miles long is still the most expensive item in the scheme, and unless the Minister is willing to do an inferior job it cannot cost less …[Interjections.] The tunnel which is the most expensive item, according to the speech the Minister made in March, 1959, remains unchanged, and all the other things the Minister mentioned are ancillary to the tunnel. They may believe that this scheme will only cost £375 a morgen. That suits me for the purposes of the argument I want to develop. But I want to remind the House that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) spoke of a scheme earlier to-day which in the planning stage we were told would cost £40,000, and now that it is being done it will cost £40,000 per farm. Knowing that, what value can I attach to the preposterous suggestion of the Minister that he can do the Conroy Scheme at £375 a morgen? Either the Department is making a wrong calculation now, or Mr. Conroy was right when he thought that his scheme would cost £18,000,000 and not £70,000,000. But that is not the point I want to make. The point is that the Minister should tell us when he became converted to the Conroy Scheme, which was so diligently kept alive for South Africa by the hon. member for Albany? The second thing he should have explained is: When did he decide to go ahead with the Orange River Scheme? When did they make that Departmental decision? Because unless the Minister can give us a satisfactory reply to that, South Africa has witnessed one of the most scandalous bits of exploitation of its citizens that has ever happened in our history. While the Minister on his own admission has decided to spend £375 a morgen to bring water to the Fish River Valley, during the last recess the Government arranged to buy the land from those desperate settlers in the Fish River Valley at £150 a morgen. Did the Government know that they had changed their minds about the Conroy Scheme and were going ahead with the development of the Fish River Scheme, and with the diversion of water from the Orange River into the Fish River? Did they know that they were going to spend £375 a morgen to bring water to that almost desolate land when they bought that land from the farmers for £150 a morgen? That is one of the most unjust practices of which they are guilty, when they deceived the farmers of the Fish River to sell their land at £150 per morgen when they knew that it would cost £375 a morgen to put it under water. [Interjections.] I think the Minister of Finance should tell us whether the Government knew that they had changed their minds and that they were going to divert water from the Orange River to the Fish River when they bought land from the settlers at £150 a morgen? Or were those people deceived? The member for Vereeniging now shouts at me, “; Why did the Government buy that land?”; I do not know. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am sure the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) does not know, because if he did, and if he was an honourable man, he would resign from the Nationalist Party.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I do. I will say then that as an honourable man he would resign from the Nationalist Party. He asked me by way of interjection why I thought the Government had done this. He does not know, and I do not know, but I have a theory and I want to put that theory to the House, because there is no other way of explaining this complete change of face on the part of the Government. The reason why they changed their minds about this scheme, which in 1959 was considered to be completely and utterly uneconomic, and which according to the Minister would have brought water to inferior soil—has the soil become superior all of a sudden?

Yes, through the application of fruit salts.

How did they change the nature of the soil? We have to ask ourselves: Is the reason not that this water is not needed to rescue the irrigation farmers in the Fish River Valley, but it is needed for the border industries to implement the Prime Minister’s Bantustan scheme? [Interjections.] To me, as a layman, who attributes the highest motives to the Government, that is the only explanation for this change of face. We all know that what is behind this change of face is not to rescue the farmers but to advance the Bantustan policies of the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] But I shall leave the Minister there, and I repeat that he should take an opportunity to tell us. He had an opportunity to-day to do so, but he should take an early opportunity to tell us two or three things. The first is: When did the Government change its mind? Secondly: Why did the Government change its mind, and thirdly, when the Government bought this land from the unsuspecting and desperate settlers in the Fish River Valley, did they know that they were going to spend more than twice as much money on every morgen to bring water to that land?

But now I want to deal with another matter. I have been dragged into this discussion almost against my will. [Laughter.] I had to do so because of the superficial manner in which the Minister dealt with this issue. I want to point out that we are now reaching the end of the Session, which has run true to the pattern of every session of Parliament since 1948. Parliament assembled to attend to the just government of men in South Africa, and we have spent more than half, at least 70 per cent of our time, on ideological matters, and hardly any time on the fate and the needs and the aspirations of the average South African.

Who spent time on that?

I ask myself who initiates measures in this House. When it comes to Private Members’ Day, we of the Opposition have an equal opportunity with the Government. Without discussing the merits of any motions, let us look at the subject matter of the motions moved by us and by hon. members opposite while there were Private Members’ Days available to us. On 7 February I moved a motion asking the Government to attend to the interests of the white-collar workers of South Africa. On 16 February the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) moved a resolution drawing the attention of the Government to the plight of the farmers and the danger of surpluses. That was four months ago, and the same criticisms are still valid The Government has not thought about those issues, but they have thought a lot about ideological matters. On 9 March the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) asked for a voluntary medical aid system to assist the ordinary citizen to meet the problem of medical expenses. On the 16th the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) moved a resolution asking that Government Ministers should be restricted in their business activities. At that time it might have seemed not to be a bread-and-butter issue, but since then more than 40 Afrikaans journalists have been sacked as a result of the Prime Minister’s participation in the newspaper business, and I realize now that that was a bread-and-butter issue, too. What did we get from hon. members opposite? The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman)—I give him full marks for it—moved a motion on the shortage of technicians. He wasted his breath and his time, but at least he did it. Then came the hon. member for Klerksorp (Mr. Pelser) with a motion that the jury system should be abolished. Then came the hon. member for Vereeniging with a motion in regard to the newly-appointed Minister of Information. All that had nothing to do with the bread and butter of the people of South Africa. Then, finally, as a climax, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) came with a motion that the Government should initiate the wholesale destruction by clubbing of the fauna in the seas around our coast. The Minister of Finance will find that seven or eight times as much time was spent on ideological measures than on the motions we moved.

You had the choice of subjects.

We had the choice for 125 hours in the Committee Stage on the Budget, and by far the most of that time was spent discussing the interests of the people of South Africa. That is really the only time that we had the initiative. I want to give an example of what happened. When I moved on 7 February that something should be done for the white-collar workers of the country, the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs replied on behalf of the Government because not a single Cabinet Minister thought it worth while to be in the House while we were discussing the interests of the white-collar workers. The Deputy Minister answered and gave a solemn undertaking that this Session there would be a new consolidating and amending Shop and Offices Bill. That Bill was published, but that is the last we heard about it. About a week ago I asked the Leader of the House whether that Bill would come on and I was told no. There may be a good reason for it. I understand the reason is that certain interested parties have asked that the Bill should stand over, but why did the Minister of Labour not have the courtesy to tell us, after the promise we got on our initiative, that the Bill would come on? After all, we knew the Minister of Labour as a most courteous man. When he was in the United Party his courtesy was exemplary, and his degeneration could not have been so fast since he has been sitting over there. It is a great pity that we did not have a chance to discuss that Bill in detail. The Minister is not here, but I hope somebody will convey a suggestion to him. I want to suggest that this delay in bringing the promised Bill to the House could be usefully employed by the Government to investigate scientifically some of the proposed provisions of that Bill, especially where there are differences of opinion between employees and employers. I think, e.g., of a thing like minimum working hours in shops and offices. I notice that in the proposed Bill 46 hours is suggested by the Government. Some employers may think that is too short. All employees will tell the Government it is much too long. Could we not devote our time in the recess to a scientific investigation of what will be the most efficient working week in shops and offices? Industrial psychologists could give us most valuable information. There are a number of questions which should be solved. One must try to determine how long a person in the average office must work to maintain his optimum efficiency and his maximum output; at what stage will the curve of productivity of a worker begin to fall? We do know that as the result of long working hours it falls very rapidly, through fatigue. Errors are increased and so are accidents. We also know that productivity is affected by factors like noise and the type of work they do and the posture in which they work. Cannot we have a scientific investigation of this problem and find a norm, because that is all the Act can lay down, a norm, which may be exceeded by some people, and which may be made shorter for others. But at the moment the position is unsatisfactory. Employers will tell you that one of the major complaints about workers is absenteeism, and the fact that relations between employer and employee are not always happy. One wonders whether that is not perhaps due to the fact that the 46-hour working week is too long. I am not expressing a final opinion at this stage, but I do suggest strongly that the recess should be devoted to a scientific investigation of this matter, and I want to suggest generally that at least during the next session of Parliament the Government should take a little time off from its ideological preoccupation to attend to the needs of the ordinary people.

Which Minister’s Vote are you discussing now?

If I discuss the Vote of any particular Minister, it would be a single tragedy. I want to discuss accumulative tragedy, the policy of the whole Government. We in South Africa have to face the fact of the wrong assurances the Minister of Finance gave us a year ago, when he told us that our remaining in the Commonwealth would be completely automatic. To-day we are the most isolated and lonely nation in the world. The Minister told us that our remaining in the Commonwealth was automatic, and he tried to make my Leader look ridiculous because my Leader warned the Government that they would be surrendering our membership of the Commonwealth into the hands of the less friendly members of the Commonwealth like Ghana, and history proved that the Leader of the Opposition was right and that the Minister of Finance, as so often happens, was wrong. There was no truth or reality in his assurances. I say we are the most isolated country in the world. [Interjection.] The Minister for Coloured Affairs should not make these silly statements. Let the Minister mention to me one other country in the world which could not get a single vote in its favour at UN. As a last desperate resort of the Cabinet, when they are completely cornered, they retaliate by saying: Tell us what you would do. Sir, the United Party Government would not have given Ghana the opportunity of ousting us from the Commonwealth. Secondly, the United Party Government would not have set about converting every conventional way of life in South Africa into rigid race laws, with cumulative sanctions attached to every law. We would have left race relations in this country as they have been for 300 years, largely to the common sense of the South African people. We would not have made of this Parliament a cockpit to enforce the ideological extremes of the Government. We would not have given the world this unfortunate image of South Africa. We would have sent people to represent South Africa overseas, who by their history would have had the confidence and respect and the affection of many nations in the world.

Luthuli?

A United Party Government would have sent people overseas to represent us who would have made friends with the nations of the world, but this Government sent people overseas who antagonized people by their attitude. [Interjection.] I think the time has come that South Africa should realize that all of us have to make adaptations because the world of to-day is not the world of 1948. I think the people of South Africa should have sympathy with the Prime Minister. He is making adaptations. His policy, which I do not intend to discuss, his Bantustan policy, is an attempt at adaptation. It is not the policy of the Nationalist Party of Dr. Malan or of Mr. Strijdom. I often wonder if the late Dr. Malan or the late Mr. Strijdom could be revived and could return to the South African scene to see what the present Prime Minister has done to the policy of the Nationalist Party, what they would do? I think they would rush back to the cemetery as fast as they could, and jump into their graves and say: “; Maak toe, mense, maak toe”!, because there is not the slightest doubt that the present Prime Minister has completely abandoned the past policies of the Nationalist Party. What is more, Mr. Speaker, there are many hon. members opposite who agree with me but who have not got the courage to say it. Any hon. member on that side of the House who honours the memory of Dr. Malan must feel as I feel that the present Prime Minister has repudiated him. I was in this House when Dr. Malan said that any person who suggested that total territorial separation would be a policy in South Africa was talking nonsense; that the Nationalist Party would not follow a policy which was impracticable. It was said over and over again that a Bantustan policy was impracticable. How many members opposite will recall Mr. Strijdom standing in this House and attacking the United Party for suggesting that he wanted to follow a Bantustan policy. He said that any United Party member who suggested that that was his policy would be a liar. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying when I was so unjustly interrupted, that we should have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. the Prime Minister in his attempts to adapt himself and South Africa to the realities of the present world. I wish for one, Sir, that his proposed adaptations were practicable, were acceptable to reasonable people. I genuinely wish that his adaptations could offer some hope to South Africa and the people of South Africa. But the adaptations of the Prime Minister are similar to the adaptations which a fish makes when it is pulled out of the water. It flops around, it goes into all sorts of convulsions before it perishes. I am afraid, Sir, that the present Nationalist Party Government is unfit to govern any country in the present world. After all, Sir, they were returned to power in 1948 on an undertaking to the people of South Africa that they would retain the status quo in this country for all time. Their propaganda in 1948 against the Smuts Government was that the Smuts Government was a Government willing to face changes, to face adaptations.

And you lost the election.

Of course we lost the election. The Nationalist Party, on that undertaking, won the election but they are losing South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I still have unbounded confidence—and so have the whole United Party—in South Africa and in the people of South Africa. We know that the people of South Africa will wake up before long and when the people wake up to the realities of this life they will expel that Government and give the Leader of the Opposition the chance to do what the United Party has had to do so often in the past, and that is to save South Africa, before it is too late, from an unholy mess created by others.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) on his speech. I have seen many comedians in my time but Jerry Lewis at his best was not as good as the hon. member. I am not the only one who thinks like this. I am not alone in thinking that the hon. member was clowning. His whole party shares my opinion. I notice that during the first half of his speech he acted like a clown. Then he tried for a while to be serious and then he reverted to being a clown. When he was being a clown, he received the most vigorous applause from his side of the House but when he became serious he did not elicit any reaction from this side or his own side. When he saw that it was of no avail trying to be serious, because his own members do not take him seriously, he once again reverted to clowning.

The hon. member has referred to the Orange River scheme. I am not going to discuss the Orange River scheme to-night, because I do not know anything about it. However, I think I know more about it than the hon. member for Yeoville, but even with that knowledge I do not feel entitled to discuss the matter. I hope the hon. member will now show me the courtesy of listening to me. He has said that it is scandalous that this Government has bought land from certain farmers along the Fish River for £150 per morgen. He has also said that the Government already knew at that time that it would cost it £375 per morgen to bring the water to that land. He has said that the Government had deliberately misled these people in order to buy their land at £150 per morgen. I now ask the hon. member for Yeoville why he has not had the moral courage, why he has not had the honesty, to say that the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services offered to sell the land of any of those farmers who had sold their land, back to them at the same price? I ask him why he has not had the courage to say that? I ask him whether he knew this? He is now trying to induce his colleagues around him to talk to him, but I do not mind. I am discussing his absolute dishonesty and immorality …

Order' The hon. member cannot say that.

Well, Mr. Speaker, then I say that I am concerned about his honesty and about his morality. He has made this false accusation. And I now challenge him to show the courage to say that he knew that the hon. the Minister had offered to sell the land back to these people at the same price.

It was an absolutely worthless offer.

Why was it a worthless offer? Allow me to tell the hon. member this: The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) was walking around here with a cheque for R26,000 in his pocket which the Government had paid to a person whose land it had bought. That owner simply endorsed the cheque, sent it back to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and said: Return the money to the Government so that I can get my land back. The hon. member for Yeoville knew that the land could be bought back at the same price. Why is he so dishonest as not to say that here?

Order!

Very well, Mr. Speaker, why was he so honest as not to mention it? As long as he could act like a clown, as long as he could create an incorrect impression, while he knew it was not true …

On a point of order …

Order! No, the hon. member must withdraw that.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, then I withdraw it. I now ask the hon. member for Yeoville: Did he know of the offer by the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services? [Interjections.] I ask him if he knew of it or not. He does not have the moral courage to say that he knew of it. I am not interested in whether he regards it as a worthless offer. All I am interested in is this: He has said that this Government has bought the land of those people at £150 per morgen, while the Government knew that it was going to spend £375 per morgen to bring water to that land. He then added that the Government had cheated these people in a gross and scandalous way.

I did not say that.

You did!

[Inaudible.]

May I explain …

His argument would have substance if the Government had taken such a deplorable step as to offer £150 for the land knowing that in the near future they were going to take water to that land which would increase its value to £475. I say that would have been the meanest thing the Minister could have done. But after the Minister had announced his scheme, he said: I paid you £150 per morgen for land which will increase in value to £475, £400 and £500. Those of you who think that I have treated you unfairly can buy back your land at the same price as I paid for it. And those farmers are satisfied to-day. I now ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he knew of that offer by the Minister. If he had a grain of courage, he would say “yes” or “no”. Did he know of this offer by the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services?

I knew it. I knew of this worthless and meaningless offer, but the people were in financial difficulties … [Interjections.]

The hon. member should be ashamed of himself. The hon. member says that these people are in financial difficulties. How can they be in financial difficulties if the value of their land has suddenly risen from £150 per morgen to more than £400? How can they be in financial difficulties? Any bank would advance them the money they need to buy back their land. But he is now creating the impression that the Government has misused a bunch of poor farmers who did not have water on their land. People who adopt that attitude …Mr. Speaker, you will not allow me to say that they are immoral … but I do not believe that they have faith in their own morality. I now make this allegation against the hon. member for Yeoville: He has depicted a false picture in this House. He was fully aware of the fact that these people could buy back their land at the same price. But for the sake of scoring a debating point, for the sake of hearing the applause of his side of the House, he does not mind creating such an incorrect impression, he does not mind creating such a completely incorrect impression in this House. I now ask the hon. member for Yeoville: Where is his morality? Mr. Speaker, he is not an incompetent person. To tell the truth, he is one of the best debaters in this House. I must say that he makes an impression on his side of the House by the type of speech he has made here to-night. What causes me regret is that a man with his ability, a man with his talents, is wasting his ability and those talents on this type of thing. I now want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville this: It is not the first time he has made this type of speech. He has been making this type of speech for the past 14 years already. He has been making them in this House; he has been making them on the platteland and he has been making them in the cities, and, Mr. Speaker, they always bring retribution. If he holds two meetings in a constituency, his party loses that constituency. He is the most useful person from the point of view of losing constituencies. He has now done something here to-night; he has now scored a point for his party. It was the most worthless, the most monstrous speech he has ever made. He thinks that he has scored a point for his party, but when these farmers along the Fish River read his speech, they will see what untruths he has told here. He has not done so deliberately, but out of simple ignorance, political ignorance. I should like to hear that hon. member when one day he has a good case to defend, if he is so brilliant when he has to defend such a poor case. If he is so brilliant when he makes such nonsensical statements, then I should like to hear him when he has to defend the Nationalist cause, for example. I just hope, however, that he will not regard this as an invitation, because if that hon. member should join the National Party, then I shall despair for the National Party. He reminds me of the goat of which Dr. Malan always spoke: Every bush it eats from, dies. The attack which he has made on the Orange River scheme to-night is due to nothing but jealousy on the part of that hon. member. He knows that this announcement of the Orange River scheme has been the greatest economic infusion which the Republic of South Africa has ever had.

It needed it.

The hon. member needs another type of injection but I shall not say what. Science has made very great progress, Mr. Speaker; they now give injections for anything. They can thin one’s blood; they can thicken one’s blood; they can make one happy; they can make one less happy; but they have never yet found anything to stimulate a man’s intelligence. Any injection which that hon. member may be given will not help him; science has not yet discovered anything with which to stimulate his intelligence, because he does not have intelligence to stimulate.

The hon. member for Yeoville thinks he knows something about the Orange River scheme. The last rural constituency he represented was along the Vaal River where there are many schemes. But he knew so little about irrigation schemes that he had to flee to Yeoville. I understand that the water in the Vaal River will be inadequate to meet the needs of those people at some stage in the future, but then they will simply have to use that water twice. Consequently if the hon. member for Yeoville drinks a glass of water there, he will not know whether it is a second time he is drinking that water. Water is becoming very scarce and when he drinks it a second time, he will have to add something. I have heard this story about drinking water twice at some time or another from the Minister of Lands.

Mr. Speaker, when we started this Session, we did so under a type of economic cloud. What were our economic prospects? We knew that the Government and the Prime Minister together with the Economic Planning Council were trying to remedy matters, but all at once the economic climate in South Africa changed and to-night we stand on the threshold of the greatest economic development South Africa has ever seen. That is the worst setback that Party has ever suffered. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) should not look so depressed already; he should see what is going to happen in a year’s time. The announcement of this Orange River Scheme, the announcement of Iscor’s development plans, the announcement of Escom’s development plans, the announcement of Sasol’s development plans and the way in which the rubber manufacturers are co-operating with them in starting this R9,000,000 rubber factory, have resulted in a revival of confidence in South Africa. And what does this revival of confidence in South Africa mean? Money has accumulated in this country. It has accumulated in the building societies and everywhere else but no one wanted to spend that money. Everyone was afraid until the Government achieved this break-through with this Orange River scheme. Then the public said: “Good gracious, if the Government has such confidence in the future of the country, if Iscor has such confidence, if Escom has such confidence, if Sasol has such confidence, then we must have confidence as well”;. The first person to react was Harry Oppenheimer. It was not three weeks after the announcement of this scheme that he started to announce large-scale development plans, first in connection with African Explosives and then the whole Anglo-American Company. He is now travelling throughout the world and borrowing money where ever he can. He has borrowed money in America; he is now in Switzerland. Why is he borrowing that money? To invest in this country with this rotten Government; to invest it in this country where there are no economic prospects; to invest it in this country which is on the brink of an economic collapse. It is not Verwoerd who is borrowing that money; it is Harry Oppenheimer. Every big business man, Mr. Speaker, if he is not borrowing money abroad, is trying to do so locally; if he is not selling shares locally he is trying to do so abroad, for the simple reason that confidence in the country has been restored. The share market is our barometer as regards confidence in this country; it is not always a very reliable barometer, but it is a very sensitive one. If one wants to know whether the world has confidence in South Africa, then one just looks to the share market. Take the days when there was no confidence in South Africa after Sharpe-ville. What happened to the Stock Exchange? It sunk to the depths; shares fell by nearly 37 per cent in value. Since that time attempts have been made to raise the level. The market climbed a little and then climbed a little higher, but during the past six months the Stock Exchange at Johannesburg has returned to where it was before Sharpeville. I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. Van der Byl) whether this is not so? He has many shares. He has made a lot of money out of shares. He has confidence in South Africa. Every penny which he has, he invests in shares. Not only domestic confidence but foreign confidence in South Africa has been restored. That is why these members feel so frustrated. I want to say that this has been the most disastrous session the United Party has ever experienced in its history. Before they expelled Mr. Strauss, he said quite a few years ago: “We have now reached rock bottom”, but he did not take the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) into account; he did not take that hon. member and her spiritual comrades-in-arms into account. The United Party has become ever smaller. The hon. member for Green Point should thank heaven that there is not an election this year. It is not the National Party which must thank heaven for that; it is they who should do so. Because, Mr. Speaker, if we were to have an election this year, they would return with even fewer members than they did last year. [Interjections.] Yes, now they have Japie. That is why they are retrogressing; that is the reason for their frustration. They are frustrated because South Africa is faring so well in the economic sphere, better than she has for many, many years past. Why are they retrogressing still further? It is because of the policy which they are trying to force on this country and what is that policy? The hon. member for Yeoville very carefully avoided it to-night. On the Vote of the Minister of Labour I wanted to cross swords with him in connection with the so-called policy of “the rate for the job”. In terms of that policy of theirs of “;the rate for the job”;all they want to do is to throw the White worker of this country onto the open market with the Bantu worker. They know that with this policy of theirs they can achieve nothing but the reduction of the average wages of the White worker. I now level this accusation at the hon. member for Yeoville: Under the policy he advocates of “the rate for the job” only one thing can happen, namely the wages of the White workers must be reduced.

You are talking nonsense.

We shall see whether this is nonsense. Under the policy of“the rate for the job”, that“rate” must be fixed. If that “; rate” is fixed at the level of the White worker’s wages to-day, then it is the worst fraud in the world. Because if one fixes the wages at that “rate”, no Bantu would get employment. The “rate”which is fixed, is the “minimum rate”. Let us assume that we have to fix the rate for a fitter and turner. It has to be fixed at a level which is lower than the present level. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) will know what I am talking about. If it is fixed at a level which is lower than it is to-day, then every employer in this country will say that the Government is now permitting him to employ everyone, White and non-White, to do the work of a fitter and turner and there are probably 100,000 fitters and turners in this country. The employer will say: The “; rate for the job”has been fixed; the White fitter and turner is earning £15 per week. He will then fix his wages at £10 per week. And the Bantu fitter and turner will be only too ready to work for £10 per week because in all his life he has never earned £10 per week. The employer, and particularly the unscrupulous employer, will now have this weapon to use against the White fitter and turner. He will say to his White fitter and turner: “;You are earning £15 per week; I can get a Bantu fitter and turner for £10 per week. If you are not prepared to work for £12 10s. per week, then you must simply get out”. Mr. Speaker, the pace is not set by the exemplary employer, not by the good employer; the pace is set by the unscrupulous employer. The unscrupulous garment manufacturer, the unscrupulous equipment manufacturer, the unscrupulous shoe manufacturer, etc., compete on the market and they set the pace. I therefore tell the hon. member for Yeoville this: What he proposes for the White workers in South Africa is to leave them to the mercy of the unscrupulous employers and to give the unscrupulous employers this weapon of “the rate for the job” in terms of which the Bantu worker will work for a far lower rate than the White worker. I say it will suit them; it will suit their masters; it will suit Harry Oppenheimer; it will suit industrialists and such people. Because the hon. member knows that his policy is not acceptable to the White workers, he indulged in the tirade to-night which we have just heard.

Then the hon. member says that we are isolated because we have left the Commonwealth, because we have been forced out of the Commonwealth. That is why we are now isolated. If we had remained in the Commonwealth, then we would have been in good company! The hon. member receives this newsletter from the “British Information Service”. Has he read the one which arrived to-day? Has he read what England says of its own Commonwealth? Has he read what England says about this motion on Rhodesia now before UNO? Allow me to read this to him—

When I read about what Britain says Nkomo is doing behind the scenes, then I think of Luthuli, Sebukwe and those people. It then continues—

This is the Commonwealth; these are the people whom we should allow to prescribe to us! These are the people who forced us out of the Commonwealth. It is their requirements with which we would have had to comply if we wished to remain a member of the Commonwealth. And now Mr. Macmillan says that these are the people who are acting in this way against England at UNO. He said—

These are the people who forced us out of the Commonwealth. And these are the people to whom England says she will no longer listen. She will no longer listen to them as far as Rhodesia is concerned. And these are the people to whom the hon. member for Pinelands wants us to listen so that we can remain in the Commonwealth. This innocent hon. member for Pinelands knows—I do not know whether the hon. member for Yeoville knows it—the hon. member for Pinelands could not do a dishonest thing even if he tried; unlike the hon. member for Yeoville who cannot be honest even if he did try. It is said that our isolated position in the Commonwealth and our isolated position at UNO are attributable to the apartheid policy of this Government. I do not want to discuss the old story which we all know so well, namely that these attacks on South Africa did not start under this Government. They started under the Smuts Government. They started when General Smuts was one of the founders of UNO; when General Smuts was the hero, the favourite of the West. He tried to defend us at UNO and Mrs. Pandit gave him the hiding of his life. She succeeded in having her motion accepted by a tremendous majority against General Smuts’ opposition. At that time there was no question of Dr. Malan coming into power. At that time there was not even any question of our applying a so-called policy of apartheid in this country. At that time already UNO adopted resolutions against us in the face of General Smuts.

Not on colour issues.

That hon. member cannot get anyone to go to bioscope with him. I wonder whether his wife goes with him. He must ask the Minister to go with him and I shall be very glad if the Minister will show the same good taste as his wife. Why were those hostile resolutions adopted in 1946? What did they deal with? They dealt with nothing but the treatment of Indians in South Africa. And our treatment of the Indians in South Africa is based on their colour. It is not we who treated them in that way; it was Smuts who treated them in that way. The hon. member for South Coast was very concerned about the Indians in Natal when he was an Administrator, and it was because of his treatment of the Indians that this question was raised at UNO, the treatment which he accorded them simply because they had a certain colour and were of a certain race. In his time they were pegged to certain areas; they were told that they could not buy land in certain areas. Then the Indians were told that they could not have the vote. Then the hon. member for South Coast told them that they could not have the municipal franchise. And this is what Mrs. Pandit Nehru said, and the hon. member for Turffontein can invite Mrs. Pandit to bioscope and discuss the matter with her. It was at that time that accusations against us were made at UNO. It had nothing to do with the policy of this Government. But now we have further proof that the attacks at UNO in the Republic of South Africa have nothing to do with our policy. These attacks started long before the policy of apartheid was applied. We have further proof because they are now attacking Southern Rhodesia which follows the opposite policy to that of South Africa. Hon. members opposite are now urging that we should adopt the policy of “partnership”, of federation, call it what you like, just as long as it is not apartheid. And I assume that the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is still far more conservative than the policy of Sir Roy Welensky and the policy of Sir Edgar Whitehead. Sir Edgar Whitehead’s policy is far more liberal; he is making far more concessions to the Black man of Southern Rhodesia than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to make to the Bantu of the Republic of South Africa. But what has now happened at UNO? Now they are making tremendous attacks on Southern Rhodesia, and I think that to date only one person has risen to plead on Southern Rhodesia’s behalf, namely the representative of Canada. All the other countries have spoken against her, and they are now demanding self-government for Rhodesia within a year. And what has that got to do with our policy?

But they did not vote against Rhodesia.

Yes, at one time we also had the support of 20, 30 and 40 delegates. In the old days when there was a small group of Afro-Asian States at UNO, we also had 25 and 30 votes. But the votes for us have become ever fewer in number, and last year or a year or two ago England would have received the majority, an overwhelming majority, if a motion similar to that now before UNO had been proposed at that time. But now she is clearly in the minority, and that minority is going to become ever smaller. England has lost the support of all her Commonwealth Black countries and the Asian countries, all the Afro-Asian countries. The only countries still supporting her are Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and if Mr. Diefenbaker remains in power for much longer—and thank heaven it seems as though he will not be there for much longer—then the question is how long she will still have the support of Canada. She still has the votes of a few Western countries. We also received the votes of a few Western countries for a long time. But the process is crystal clear. What is that process? It is to expel the White man from Africa, to expel him from Kenya, to expel him from Tanganyika, to expel him from Nyasaland, to expel him from Northern Rhodesia and, it is equally clear to expel him from Southern Rhodesia. And these are the same tactics as those being used against us: The White man must be expelled from Southern Africa; if not physically, then he must in any case be made subordinate to a Black Government in the Republic of South Africa. That is the process. It is so clear to anyone who is not too blind to see and to anyone who is not too deaf to hear that this is the process. England is prepared to give Southern Rhodesia a constitution which is far more liberal than the Leader of the Opposition would dare to give our Bantu. Britain is prepared to say:“Just give us an opportunity; this Constitution is only the start; you will be given ever-increasing rights, and eventually the principle will be ‘one man, one vote There is no one in England who denies that. And the British permanent representative at UNO does not deny that eventually they are prepared to grant the principle of ’ one man one vote”; to those people. All they ask is time. But the Afro-Asian countries, with the support of Russia—and perhaps it will not be long before it will also be with the support of America—are saying that Britain is not going to be given time. They say: “We do not grant you 15 years and 20 years to make friends with those people and to establish a proper Government; we demand independence for Southern Rhodesia before the end of next year.” And then hon. members opposite say that this is due to apartheid! They say that it is due to the fact that Dr. Verwoerd is in power. Mr. Speaker, it is only malicious people who can speak in this way; only people who do not see what is happening in the world in its proper perspective; only people who are prepared to tread our country underfoot if only they can succeed in one aim, namely to destroy this Government.

I want to make an appeal to hon. members, because it must be clear even to them that this direction which they are following is not in the interests of South Africa. But it is quite clearly also not in the interests of their party. They are losing support every day. More and more people are saying: “We differ from this Government; we do not think they are following the right policy for South Africa, but by heaven we tell you that we are not going to be forced out of this country. If you want to do to us what you want to do to Southern Rhodesia, then we stand solidly behind Verwoerd”. If the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would adopt that attitude and say: “If that is to happen, we stand solidly behind Verwoerd”—they need not agree with his policy—if they would tell the world that our country is not a police State, if they would tell the world that this is not a dictatorship; that this is not a State where the Black man is oppressed merely because he is Black, but this is a well-run State which we have built up over a period of 300 years with blood and tears and in which we have achieved a position where the Coloured man and the Black man are better off in the Republic of South Africa than the Black man anywhere else in Africa—if they would adopt that attitude, it would at least mean something; then they would not only help us to defend the name of our country, they would not only help to restore confidence in South Africa, they would not only help to create the correct impression of South Africa in the world, the true picture, the picture which they know is the truth, but what would it not mean? The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) not so long ago wrote two brilliant letters to the Cape Argus. All I ask of the hon. member for Green Point, and I do so as well, is that he should co-operate in making that his party’s official attitude, that the spirit which shone out of those letters—we know that the hon. member is very strongly opposed to this Government—should be the spirit of the Opposition. Then nothing can stop us. But let me conclude by telling the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) this: South Africa is on the march. Economically we have broken through the sound barrier. There is no doubt about that any longer, and we are breaking through the sound barrier as regards South Africa’s good name, as regards our relations with the Western world. And as regards our relations with the African States, I am also quite sure that we are gradually breaking through that sound barrier as well. Mr. Speaker, I do not ask any of the hon. members opposite to support the policy of this Government. There are faults in this policy. It can be criticized. I do not say that it is the panacea, that it is perfect. Nobody is so stupid as to say such a thing. No one denies that the type of policy the Opposition advocates has its merits. But I say to the hon. member for Yeoville: Throw yourself into this struggle and stand by the side of the White man in Southern Africa. The hon. member is a capable man. Let him say: I do not want to be seen any longer in the company of a Tom Mboya or a Centlivres, or a Patrick Duncan and such people. Let the hon. member pull himself free from those people and let him stand by South Africa. And I want to link a warning to this appeal to them. We want to do these things. We would rather do them with the Opposition, but without them or with them, the National Party will do these things, and I have never had more confidence in the future of the Republic and in the future of the White man in the Republic and also in the future of the Bantu in the Republic than I have to-night.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee; has concluded his speech with an attempt to make an appeal to this side of the House to stand by South Africa. But the appeal which the hon. member for Vereeniging has made to us to stand by South Africa has a hollow sound. Because are we not the people who have stood by South Africa? Are we not the people who do not want South Africa to be cut up into various States? Are we on this side of the House not the people who want unity between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking peoples in this country? Are we not the people who want to give the opportunity to our young people to get to know one another and, before we can think of playing our rightful part on the Continent of Africa and in the world, do we not want to achieve that close unity between Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africans? The hon. member now tells us that we should not stand with Mboya and the Centlivres’ and that type of person. Incidentally the hon. member only vilifies people like a Centlivres. What do we on this side of the House want for South Africa? In the first place we want to see that there should be peaceful co-existence between all the various racial groups in this country. But what of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee)? When he crossed over from this side of the House to the other side of the House, what was his attitude towards the Coloureds? The hon. member for Vereeniging should know that if we want to safeguard the White man and Western civilization in South Africa, then we must retain the goodwill and the friendship of the Coloureds. And what is the hon. member for Vereeniging doing? At that time, when he sat on this side of the House, he was one of the greatest champions of the Coloureds and their rights.

I still am.

The hon. member says “I still am”. He has forced them back into a position of political sterility, whereas they had the opportunity to take their place on the side of Western civilization. The hon. member for Vereeniging has made himself guilty of an act which has endangered the goodwill and the friendship of the Coloureds. Now, as Dr. van Rhijn has said, we stand alone in the world, and the hon. member wants to hold the United Party responsible for that. Mr. Speaker, we are not responsible. It is the actions of this Government during the past 13, 14 years which have resulted in South Africa no longer having a friend in the world to-day. We on this side should like to see South Africa having more friends abroad. We should therefore like to see that we retain our old friends, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said to-day, our old friends of the Commonwealth, and that we take action which will bring us closer to those people. What has the hon. member for Vereeniging said in this regard? Not a word.

Which countries for example?

Australia, New Zealand, England and Canada for example.

But they are our friends. Does the hon. member want to insinuate that Canada and New Zealand are hostile towards South Africa to-day?

No, I do not want to say that those countries are hostile towards South Africa, but I want us to be able to work in the closest co-operation and this was the position when we were still a member of the Commonwealth. But to-day we are outside that group, and it is the desire of this side of the House that we should once again find points of contact in order to achieve the desired co-operation with those countries.

You are chasing a chimera.

The actual point to which I want to reply is the allegation by the hon. member for Vereeniging that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) knew that the people who had been bought out in the Fish River Valley were given another opportunity by the Government to buy back that land, but they refused to do so.

Many of them did.

The hon. member has alleged that the hon. member for Yeoville knew this and did not say so. But what is the position as regards those people? The hon. member knows nothing about the conditions there. He does not know that over the past 10, 15 years these people sent deputation after deputation to the Government and asked the Government: Please provide us with the indispensable necessity for making a living, namely water.

And they also asked to be bought out.

For 14 years under the Nationalist Party régime these people came to the Government, but on every occasion it was only this side of the House, through the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), who championed the cause of these people, while the Government did nothing.

That is untrue.

One deputation after the other came. There was one deputation which consisted of more than 100 people.

Who led them?

The hon. member knows that it was led by Mr. Venter.

That is not true.

The hon. member surely does not want to say that it was led by the hon. member for Somerset West?

Yes, exactly.

If that is the case, then it is an even greater scandal that these people had to come from time to time and plead with the Government to be given more water in their areas. But what happened? When the hon. the Minister visited them in 1959, he told those people, according to reports which appeared in the Argus at that time: You can forget the old Conroy scheme.

Yes, the old Conroy scheme.

What is more, here in this Parliament on 13 March 1959 the Minister repeated exactly the same statement, and the hon. member for Albany and I myself were ready to take up the matter and to ask him questions in connection with that matter, and we did so as well. The hon. the Minister then told us: Look, what I told those people is that they can forget that scheme, because it will cost too much.

What else did he say?

I shall tell the hon. member what else he said, because he said it in Parliament as well. He said for example that it would cost £70,000,000 to irrigate the 70,000 morgen, and he then also told them—

And now? Now the 51 mile tunnel is not only being built, but in accordance with the Conroy plan miles and miles of canals are being built.

Are you not glad about it?

Of course I am glad, and the hon. member for Yeoville has said that we welcome it, and we are just surprised and could like to know when the hon. the Minister changed his mind.

It has always been his policy.

I want to go so far as to say that it was also the late Mr. Strijdoms policy. In 1951 at the Colesberg Conference to which was submitted a report by the Department of Irrigation dealing with all the schemes which would have been built along the Orange River (if the United Party had had the opportunity to continue governing the country the scheme would have been built sooner.) Mr. Strijdom also adopted that attitude. But does the hon. member for Vereeniging now want to tell me this: The farmers pleaded for 14 years for water and deputation after deputation was sent to the Government. People were completely ruined. What were people who did not have a nest egg at the bank, the building society or the Post Office, and whose debts were piling up to the tune of thousands of pounds each year, to do? What would the hon. member himself have done? I would have said to the hon. the Minister: “Please, buy my farm: let us get rid of this burden so that we can at least keep something with which to make a fresh start” I go so far as to say that these people (and the hon. member for Somerset East knows this) who were bought out, not only had debts with financial institutions and insurance companies, but they also had debts with local shopkeepers; they also had debts with their farmers’ co-operatives. What happened? The Government said: Look, we are prepared to pay you £150 per morgen.

That is not true either. They got more.

Very well, let it be more. Let us say £200 per morgen. But they did not get £375. Does the hon. member think that these people could have refused such an offer? Of course they immediately accepted it. But now the hon. member for Vereeniging has put up his smokescreen and said: “The hon. the Minister has now given those people an opportunity to buy their farms back.” What with? With sand, with stones, with the shrivelled lucern stubble that stands on their lands? The hon. member for Somerset East is not so stupid. He knows that those people could not buy their farms back. They were too glad to get rid of them. Let us take the position of a farmer who had, let us say, 200 morgen there. Let us say that he was paid £40,000. But over and above his mortgage bonds, he had diverse debts to the tune of £10,000 or £15,000 which he had to pay off after he received the money. Does the hon. member think that that person can go to the Government again and repay his £40,000? I shall tell the House a story. A year or so ago Mr. Harry Sieberhagen the vice-chairman of the Fish River Valley Irrigation Board was here in Parliament (the hon. member for Somerset East knows him well). He asked me what I thought was going to happen: whether I did not think they would get water. I then told him that as I saw the position, the Government would be obliged sooner or later to make better use of the Orange Rivers water. And I told him: “Warn your people not to sell”

Did he sell?

I told him here in the lobby of Parliament that he should warn his people. But what did he tell me? He said: “Old friend, those people cannot hold out any longer”. Now the hon. member for Vereeniging has risen with a great fanfare and said that the Government made this offer to sell the land back to them again.

Of course.

I now ask the hon. member this: They say they stand by the farmers. Let us say that the water comes to those areas within the next six years. After the water has been brought there, will he be prepared to sell that land to the farmers at the same price? The farmers sold for £200 per morgen. When the first stage of the scheme is started—and the bringing of water to the Fish River forms part of this stage—within say the next five years, will they sell that land to the farmers again at the same price for which they sold?

To-day.

Of course it is easier today. But how are these people to live? These people have already suffered for 15 years without water. Does the hon. member want to say that these people can be so foolish as to buy that land in order to sit there for the next five years without water?

When will the hon. member grow up?

If hon. members were such great friends of those farmers, they would have said to them: Very well, as soon as we provide you with water, we shall be prepared to sell the land back to those of you who have sold to the State at the same price as that at which you sold.

Will you discuss the matter with me on any platform?

I have already held many meetings in the hon. member’s constituency, but he of course does not come near mine. And a large part of the member’s constituency falls in those areas. In 1958 there was such a water shortage amongst those people that the hon. member for Somerset East also had to take the then Minister of Irrigation, the present Minister of Lands, to those areas. What did they say at that time? They said: Look, because you are now suffering from such a tremendous water shortage, we are going to help you to pump water out of the Sundays River by means of pumping installations by means of subsidies, by means of allowances. How far did they get? That is a promise which was just left at that. This was a promise which was made because the hon. member for Somerset East and the then Minister of Water Affairs realized that the had to make such a promise to the voters in those areas because the prospect had been held up to them that water would be brought to those areas, but by 1958 nothing had as yet been done. I submit that because this side of the House through the hon. member for Albany has persisted in advocating this scheme every year—not only for the Fish River and the Sundays River valleys, but for the sake of the improved utilization in general of all the water of the Orange River,—hon. members opposite have got into difficulties as a result of the promises they have made and cannot carry out, and the voters in those areas are now beginning to take very careful note of the genuinely South African attitude of this side of the House in pleading for the improved utilization of our natural resources in that part of the country.

And yet they have always voted against you.

The hon. member for Yeoville has put one or two very good questions to the hon. the Minister, and any other member could answer them, but the hon. member for Vereeniging did not answer them. He asked when the Minister was persuaded to do something about the Orange-Fish River Scheme. Was he aware of the intention to bring water to this valley before he gave those people an opportunity to sell? And if he was aware of the Government’s intention and of the fact that it was the intention to buy up those parts of the country, why did he conceal that fact? Why did he not tell those people: “Look, I am now telling you that I do not want to place you under an obligation, but I just want to tell you that it is the Government’s intention to take the water of the Orange River to these areas. Because when did the Government decide to buy up this land? Just a year ago.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I ask the hon. member for Somerset East. After the election, wasn't it? Not six months later the Minister put forward this worked-out and elaborate plan. He will not tell me that this plan was drawn up only six months ago. Of course not. The Department of Water Affairs had already been engaged on this plan for years. This was also their intention, I fully believe, but it was this Government which did not think of the possibilities of this plan. And now that they have bought out these people at a price which is very much lower than the present value of their land which is now to be given water, they have announced this plan.

Have they bought out all these people?

The hon. member knows that only people who had less than 300 morgen have been bought out.

There are many left.

Of course there are many still left, but the hon. member knows that even the people who are left do not have enough water. They are also struggling to make a living. It is only the man who has a great deal of outside grazing on which he can graze his goats and sheep who can keep going.

You are now discussing something of which you know nothing.

The hon. member for Somerset East should know that there are many farmers who are only making a living out of their irrigable land with perhaps a little outside grazing, but it is only the people who had less than 300 morgen whom the Government has decided to buy out. Once again it is the small farmers. The hon. member should know that a man who has a piece of land of, say, 30 to 40 morgen which he can irrigate properly, can make a living out of that land. But if he doesn’t have water and if he only has a little outside grazing? Then such a farmer must go under. But this Government could not take the people into its confidence, because the Government knew of all these plans. Does the hon. member for Somerset East want to say they did not know of these plans. Of course they knew it was the intention to continue with the scheme. But no, these people were only given this choice: They must sell. Because they were given no guarantee. What is more, I would have done so myself if I had been in the position of those farmers and I would have sold because I could not attach any value to the words of this Government. Was it not Mr. Strijdom who told them in 1951 or 1952, when the Mentz Lake wall was raised, that he hoped that he would still have the opportunity to bring water from the Orange River to those parts of the country?

Your facts are confused.

Well, I submit that basically this is the truth. These promises were made to these people but for 14 years they could not get anywhere with this Government. And now they say: We are prepared to pay you £150 or £200 per morgen—well, if a man has a farm worth £30,000 and he has debts totalling £25,000 would he not grab the opportunity? But now that they have sold, the hon. member for Vereeniging says that these people can buy their farms back