Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following motion—

Last year we also had a discussion on agriculture, a discussion which was an objective one. During that discussion the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing told us that things were going well with certain facets of agriculture and not so well with others. In other words, things were going well with certain facets and reasonably well with others. Either the hon. the Minister is not au fait with the position of the farmers in this country or he is not sympathetically disposed towards them. We pointed out last year that things were going badly with the farmers in many branches of agriculture. There are, of course, certain facets where things are going well with the farmers. The wool farmers, for example, are faring well but things are going badly with many other farmers. When we read the report dealing with the depopulation of the platteland and realize that 28,000 farmers have already left the platteland, we know that things could not have been going too well with them otherwise they would never have left the platteland. They left the platteland because things were going badly with them.

What is the development in other countries?

We are not discussing the difficulties of other countries now; we are discussing our country’s difficulties. When we see that arrear interest and capital instalments owing to the Land Bank amounted to R4.6 million in December 1961, it is clear to us that things are not going well with those farmers either because the man who cannot meet his interest and capital instalments is not a flourishing farmer. When we see that in 1957-8. according to the income-tax assessments, 17 per cent of the farmers were farming at a loss and that in 1961-2,23 per cent farmed at a loss, it is clear to us that things were not going well with them and I believe that the percentage to-day is even much higher. The production costs of maize rose between 1948 and 1962 by 102 per cent while the maize price rose by only 33 per cent. Last year production costs rose even higher and the price dropped considerably. How on earth can things be going well with those people? The cost of farming requisites rose by 1.5 per cent in 1961 and by 2.9 per cent in 1962—twice as much. Things are therefore not going at all well with the farmers. But it is not only we on this side of the House who know that things are going badly with the farmers. There are members on the other side who also know that a large number of farmers in this country are struggling.

“Boerehaters ”!

Last year the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) said the following (col. 551)—

I quote this to show that it is not only we on this side who know that things are going badly with many of our farmers. That side knows it too and the hon. member for Cradock had the courage of his convictions to stand up here and admit it.

He is an honest man.

Give me a solution.

I am coming to that. The position of the farmer has not improved over the past year. The Government and the Ministers did nothing about it. They cannot handle the present surpluses. Milk prices were lowered and the result was that many farmers produced less milk. They gave less concentrates to their cows because it did not pay them to do so. It is quite true that droughts also played their part but one of the reasons was that prices were too low; it was not a paying proposition to produce milk; the milk farmers produced less and the result was that we found ourselves with a shortage of butter and cheese and we had to import it. There is no proper planning on the part of the Government in connection with agriculture. As far as meat is concerned we recently had a surplus and now we have a shortage. Fortunately, the drought saved the Minister from a surplus this year. As far as maize is concerned the price will probably drop lower if we have a larger crop. As a result of the larger crop it is possible that some farmers will produce more per morgen and that they will be able to make a small profit. On the other hand their production costs will also be much higher

Why?

They will need more bags; their threshing expenses will be higher but the exports will be far greater because the new crop will quite possibly amount to 75,000,000 or 80,000,000 bags and the price will probably be fixed accordingly.

On what do you base that figure?

It is an estimate. One of the members of the Maize Board told me that it may easily be 80,000,000 bags. The Minister’s solution to the whole problem is that the farmer has to adapt himself. He told us last year that the farmer paid what he liked for his land; he farmed there with whatever he liked and he used his labour as he liked and he went on to say this (Col. 1262)—

“Take the price that they can get.” That is the sympathy which the farmers get from this Government! The small-scale farmers are frankly told that they will have to clear out, that they will have to be sacrificed under the policy of the Government.

That is not true and you know it.

Order!

I want to say something about meat and the handling of meat. In 1948 when this Government came into power there was a fixed price for meat. The farmer knew precisely what he was going to get; the trade had a fixed price and the producer had a fixed price. Hon. members on the other side condemned that scheme roundly, but strangely enough they continued that scheme for two and a half years after having condemned it as a bad scheme in 1946,1947 and the early part of 1948. In November 1950 they came forward with the policy of auctions on the hook for sheep together with a floor price. Six years later they introduced the system of auctions on the hook for oxen. In 1961 they abolished the whole of the permit system. We still remember the glut of sheep on the market—16,000 here in Cape Town and 30,000 in Newtown. We experienced the worst cruelty to animals that we have probably ever experienced, so much so that because of the public outcry the Government was compelled to effect a change and shortly afterwards they introduced the quota system in terms of which they placed the responsibility on the market agents and said to them: “That is your baby; you must handle the matter.” We have had this groping about in connection with the marketing of meat over the past 14 years. The Government has no plan; they meddle here and they meddle there in an effort to bring about a small improvement.

What is the position of the lucerne farmer? Two years ago there was a shortage of lucerne. The farmer received a maximum price of 88 cents per 100 lbs. Last year there was so much lucerne that the farmers along the Orange River could not sell their lucerne. They had stacks of lucerne along the Orange River resembling small mountains. Many farmers received 40 cents which their co-operative societies had to pay them. The valuation was applied very strictly and because their lucerne was not classed as first grade lucerne, the farmers were urged to plough it under. Most of the farmers did so because the production of lucerne was not paying them. Over the past six months we have had a tremendous shortage of lucerne. That is the position of the poor lucerne farmer in this country. He has no certainty and he is subject to a maximum price for his lucerne. In times of scarcity he is pegged down and in times of plenty he faces bankruptcy. There is hardly any farmer in this country who is worse off than the lucerne farmer. What was the reaction of the Minister? His reaction, particularly in connection with the maize problem, was to hold meetings in the Free State—he and his colleague. At Frankfort in August the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing said [translation]—

The Minister of Agricultural Technical Services said [translation]—

The Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing also said [translation]—

Of course.

He went further and said [translation]—

I think that if there is one section of our community which has fulfilled its obligations to the State up to the present, it is the farming section. There may be a few exceptions. There may be some irresponsible farmers who say that they cannot fulfil their obligations to the State but that is no justification for the Minister to cast this slur on the farmers and to say that they do not want to fulfil their obligations to the State. On the other hand what is the reaction of the farmers towards the Ministers? Let me quote what happened at the meeting which they held—

Here is another report—

That is the reaction of the farmers towards the Government. No wonder that one hears from numbers of places that the farmers are insisting that the two Ministers should resign. I was told by a Nationalist the other day: “I am a hardened Nationalist …”

Tell us his name.

I shall do so outside the House. This Nationalist told me: “I am a hardened Nationalist but these two Ministers must resign.” There is no sympathy for the small-scale farmer; they simply have to adapt themselves to changed circumstances. I have a case in my own constituency. Mr. Speaker, this Government is violating the Marketing Act and manipulating prices.

Prove it.

I shall prove it to my good friend, the hon. member for Cradock, who is a strong supporter of the Marketing Act. He always tells us that he was one of those who assisted in framing the Marketing Act. In the January 1962 issue of Agricon we read the following—

Does that prove that the Marketing Act is being violated?

It is simply one of the factors to be considered. The other factors which have to be considered are the quantity of maize that is exported and the price that we receive abroad, on which the domestic price is determined.

You are guessing.

It is a good guess. Mr. Speaker, it is price manipulation to get away from the principle of the Marketing Act, the principle of production costs plus a living wage for the producer. I want to quote the following from Organized Agriculture (Translation)—

Price manipulation is, of course, a serious departure from the principles of the Marketing Act and of stable marketing. A certain measure of adjustment is, of course, unavoidable, but it must be done in such a way that farmers do not suffer. The adjustment should take place over a number of years. A short-term, as well as a long-term, policy should be applied, short-term to absorb surpluses immediately and long-term to expand the local market and to find suitable foreign markets. We will have to give financial assistance, advice and guidance. As Agricon recently put it—

We fully agree with that. We think that it is absolutely necessary to do so. We must assist the farmers during this period of adjustment. We will have to develop domestic markets; the less-privileged classes must be assisted by means of subsidies. The foundation of longterm agriculture and farm planning is research, veterinary services, extension officers and agriculture faculties at universities and agricultural colleges. It is in this connection that the Ministers of Agriculture are found wanting in respect of many services. Year after year we talk about the shortage of the necessary staff. Those whom we have are doing outstanding work for us, but there are far too few of them to be able to do the work properly. At the present rate it will probably take 50 years before we are able to demarcate this country properly. Recently we only had 120 extension officers for 105,000 farmers, while Rhodesia had 170 for 4,000 farmers. There is also a tremendous shortage of technical staff. The position remains unchanged from year to year. Each year the matter is raised here, but our requests are not acceded to. It is not only we on this side who feel so strongly about this position, but hon. members on the other side as well. The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) made a very good speech in this connection last year, and I would like to quote part of that speech (col. 5577)—

Here I want to add “and to other countries ”—

And so he goes on.

What was the Minister’s reply?

The Minister’s reply was that during the war years there were no facilities—Grootfontein was closed. But the hon. the Minister forgets that the war ended 20 years ago. In any case, that is the position as it actually is. There is a shortage of these people. We cannot plan ahead and we are retrogressing. We will never overcome our problems if we do not take positive steps to remedy the position. What is the position in connection with soil conservation? The Soil Conservation Act has been on the Statute Book for 25 years. We thought that by this time we would at least have reached the stage where our soil would no longer be deteriorating and where we would have succeeded in reclaiming all our land. Instead of that we still have a marked deterioration. It will be a long time before we overcome this position. We do not have the necessary extension officers; there is no farm planning, nor are there people to ensure that the planning that we do is properly carried out. The sooner this Minister resigns the better it will be for this country.

Our policy is to stimulate industry generally by regaining the confidence of the investor both at home and abroad so that the demand for primary and related agricultural products can be increased. The lack of demand is one of the most important reasons why we are saddled with surpluses. If we had not had a change of government, if the industrial development which would have taken place under the United Party had taken place, the purchasing power of the public would have been so great that we would not have had any surpluses. If this Government had not smothered the immigration policy of the United Party, we would quite possibly have had an additional 750,000 White people in this country to-day, people who would have been consumers. They would have used our surpluses and we would have experienced far fewer difficulties than we are experiencing to-day. This problem which is facing the farmers to-day is due directly to the Nationalist Party Government. What we need in the first place therefore is a United Party Government; secondly, the maintenance of the principles of the Marketing Act system, that is to say, price stabilization and price determination on the basis of production costs plus a reasonable profit; thirdly, a thorough inquiry into the factors influencing steadily increasing production costs, particularly the prices of agricultural requisites; fourthly, positive action to combat the problem of surpluses, amongst other things, the taking of effective steps to find new markets overseas and in Africa; an increased consumption of grain as animal food; alternative uses for surpluses; the use of surpluses for emergencies and for the less privileged classes; increased purchasing power for the lower income groups; the improvement of research, information and veterinary services; improved agricultural training and education for our labour forces as well. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for our labour to receive training as well. We invest hundreds of millions of pounds of capital in machinery which is controlled by non-White labour, unskilled non-White labour. They handle that machinery in such a way that it lasts a very short time. That labour must be trained and facilities must be created to train such labour and to make it efficient. Further, farmers must be given assistance to adjust their farming operations to changing circumstances; and lastly, income-tax must be levied on an average income over a period of at least three years, Because a farmer’s income fluctuates to such an extent it is necessary that he be assessed on his average income. I move.

I have pleasure in seconding the motion that this House expresses its dissatisfaction with the agricultural policy of the Government. It is with particular pleasure that I second the motion that the two hon. Ministers of Agriculture, who are unfit to handle their portfolios, should resign. We will prove how unfit they are. It is, however, not with the same pleasure that I say that the time has come for this House to scrutinize the position of agriculture. We so often say that agriculture is the backbone of the country. In other countries in the Southern Hemisphere we say that agriculture is still the backbone of those countries but here that backbone has become so paralysed that it has become merely an appendage to the economy of the country.

This side of the House is in complete agreement with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs that the economy of this country is inherently so fundamentally sound that even the Government cannot break it. This country has everything, Sir. It has minerals, it has metals, it has precious and semi-precious stones; it has unlimited resources of coal, it has a tremendous source of labour which not even this Government and the methods which it has used, has alienated to such an extent that agriculture no longer has labour. This country has sunshine; it is the country in which we live. It is the country that we love. It is the country which we, like hon. members on the other side, will defend to the last, so that the White man can be assured of his place here.

Let us look at the position of agriculture over the last few years to try to discover what ails it. It does not help to argue about it but the fact remains that a large percentage of the farmers—I do not even want to hazard a guess at the percentage—are inherently no longer solvent; those farmers are already insolvent. What then is wrong with the country? Are prices too low? Are production costs too high? Do we not have the markets? What has gone wrong with agriculture in South Africa? Does agriculture in South Africa experience more difficulties than agriculture in Australia or New Zealand? Does our agriculture here struggle more than agriculture in the Latin-American countries where they have a form of government different to that which we have here? They have dictatorial Governments there which do not allow a country to develop in a democratic way. Even there things are going better with agriculture than here. The Nationalist Party recently published a pamphlet to indicate the phenomenal increase in our agricultural production over the last ten years and the phenomenal increase in the income of agriculture—note this well—over the past five years. They did not have the courage to take it over a ten-year period! The ten-year period which was taken was the period from 1952 to 1962. The pamphlet states that the increase in the index figure was 45 units. If one analyses the ten-year period from 1943 to 1954 one finds that this figure also rose by 45 units. It is a normal thing for the index figure for agriculture to rise if one has virile people, people with a pioneering spirit and people who will continue producing in the most scientific manner. It is the strangest thing in the world to my mind that any Government can say that because the index figure for agriculture has increased by 45 units over the past ten years, this is proof of the fact that the country has a good Government. The South African farmers are just the same as farmers in any other part of the world, and better. Notwithstanding the droughts with which they have to contend—other countries have to deal with the same problem—the farmers in South Africa are some of the best in the world, as those of us who had the privilege of doing some travelling can testify. It is the most normal thing that with their scientific methods, with everything that science can give them by way of fertilizers and mechanization and so forth they should produce more year after year. Mr. Speaker, our production has lagged behind. All the other countries in the Southern Hemisphere have been exporting countries for some time …

I think our problem is surplus production.

That is what the Government says. All the countries in the Southern. Hemisphere have been large exporting countries for some time. We have been progressing at a snail’s pace and it was only a year or two ago that we reached the stage where surpluses and export products began to create a problem. They state further in this publication that the income from agriculture has risen over the past five years by R120,000,000. They are silent about the previous five years when it dropped.

Let us look at the previous ten years. During this period production also rose by 45 units. Over that period the gross income from agriculture rose by no less than R402,000,000 as against R120,000,000 for the years 1952-62. There is something wrong in the country somewhere.

Let us ask ourselves what this Government has done to encourage and stimulate production. Has it done anything by way of a price incentive or not? For a number of years it accepted the recommendations of the marketing boards as long as the product could be consumed locally and as long as price determinations were not disturbed because of the export quota. But the moment surpluses arose they resorted to the old story of supply and demand. They cut the prices of some of those products, something which I can never agree was justified. Last year the United Party told the Minister that 10c per bag of maize would be sufficient. There is the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and if he wants to be honest he will also agree that 10c would have been adequate, but now it is 25c and 27½c. That is the decrease. That is the Government’s method of dealing with the surplus. There are many members on the other side serving on marketing boards; some of them have even been the chairmen of those boards. They know as well as we do that when a marketing board makes a recommendation in connection with the price structure, the representative of the National Marketing Council argues about it for two days or more. Boards have already adjourned and met again at a later stage because they could not get past the representative of the National Marketing Council in connection with a price recommendation. Eventually, because they can do nothing else, they accept the price which the representative of the National Marketing Council is prepared to recommend to the Minister.

When this party comes into power—I do not say “if” it comes into power; I say “when” it does—it will ensure that that National Marketing Council is reconstituted. It will not consist as it does now of six or seven members, two of whom are public servants, and others who do not speak for agriculture even though they are farmers because they have not been placed there on behalf of an agricultural organization or nominated by an agricultural organization. We will ensure that the National Marketing Council is constituted on a basis which will ensure that representatives of agriculture have seats on the Council, so that when price determinations are made there will be a correlation between the price structure and the price of the various agricultural products which we do not have to-day.

What has this Government done in the past to prevent large numbers of stock dying during time of drought?

Nothing.

Oh, no; I do not say that it has done nothing. Concessions have been made by the Railways in respect of stock which has to be transported; there have been railway concessions on fodder, That is the assistance which this Government has given. We are still waiting for the day when this Government states that it will establish a fodder bank for droughts by way of financial support or otherwise which will prevent our losing 1,000,000 or more sheep during one drought. [Interjections.] We have just experienced a severe drought but recently we have had good rains. Most parts of the country have had good rains and we are grateful for this fact but we know what this recent drought has done to our stock, what it cost the Eastern and Western Transvaal, the whole of the Free State, the Little and the Great Karoo and the Eastern Cape. We know how many head of stock died, something which could have been prevented by making available surplus stocks of grain at the export price, or even at a lower price, if necessary, to be processed into and made available as animal feed. Have we ever investigated the results of such a policy? If we can use our surplus production at a low price or at a subsidized price to be processed into animal feed and in this way feed our stock during times of drought, what will the position be then? What is the country coming to if the number of stock in this country to-day is the same as it was in 1932? How can a country feed its people if the quality of the meat falls because of drought, and if when an ox arrives at the market it weighs an average of 380 lbs. instead of 520 lbs.? If we can stimulate and strengthen our herds by way of a feeding scheme which will ensure that the animal reaches the market weighing more, we will be progressing and we will have meat for export. I challenge any hon. member opposite to tell me that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the former Department of Agriculture, before it was divided into two—ever told the farmers: We advise you to make use of the following three or four cross-breeds of oxen according to climatic conditions and locality.

You do not read your magazines; you do not know what is going on.

The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) should drive through his own constituency and then he can tell me how many cross-bred sheep he will find. I have discovered at least 20 types. Perhaps he does not know what is going on in his own constituency.

Eventually we had surplus production, notwithstanding the lack of action on the part Of the Government to stimulate agriculture. What was the reply then? There was a cut in prices, and the small-scale farmer was told that the uneconomic units were responsible for the fact that the farmers were struggling. I ask hon. members opposite? When is a unit uneconomic? It is uneconomic when production costs and the price of the land, in the first instance, are too high, and when the price of the product is too low. The size of a unit makes no difference but under those circumstances it will be uneconomic. What does an expert say? He writes as follows [translation]—

He states further [translation]—

And that is what the Government wants to do. This expert goes on to say [translation]—

Who will determine land prices?

My friend, it was the hon. member for Vredefort who wrote this, not I. I told you what the Government’s answer was to the question of surpluses. Did the Government take any steps to ensure that we had markets for any agricultural surpluses which we produced in the past and which we produced this year? If this good season continues we will probably again reap 60,000,000 or 70,000,000 bags of maize. What is the answer of the Government and of these two Ministers in connection with markets? One has to have a market to sell one’s products. It is pathetic to look at these two persons, Mr. Speaker; it is pathetic to see what they do when one talks about international markets and the international marketing system. It is a pity that they did not have the opportunity of coming into contact more with these people as the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs came into contact with them during his last three visits overseas. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs warned us yesterday. I cannot agree with him more. He did not put both alternatives; he put only one alternative to the Euromart. He said that heavy tariffs would be imposed upon agricultural products exported there. He did not say that one of the clauses of the Euromart agreement provides that where they produce an adequate quantity of a certain commodity themselves they will not permit that commodity to be imported. Who will tell me that Europe does not produce sufficient perishable products, wine, and so forth?

If we look at our trade statistics we see that of our total exports of R852,000,000 in 1961 we exported goods to the value of R380,000,000 to the United Kingdom and Rhodesia which is a good 40 per cent of our total exports, and we only exported goods to the value of R200,000,000 to the whole of Europe. Of our total exports amounting to R852,000,000, R580,000,000 went to England, Rhodesia and Europe. [Interjections.] The hon. member there is apparently not pleased that we had those markets and that we are now losing them.

He does not even know it.

We must lose them, Mr. Speaker, partly because if England joins Euromart she will be subject to all the qualifications of that body. We will then be faced with the problem of exporting those products to England whereas to-day we are freely exporting them to England. Our problem will be firstly, a tariff wall against us and secondly, we will then come into competition with the whole world because then we will have to produce at a competitive price. It has to be the same selling price as that in the rest of the world. As I have already indicated, of all the southern hemisphere countries we are most dependent upon Euromart. What are we going to do in that connection?

I will not allow myself to be told that the hon. the Prime Minister was not able to find two Ministers of Agriculture amongst the more intelligent farmers on that side who could have gone overseas at the right time and who could have appointed their trade attachés timeously or who would have encouraged the Department of Foreign Affairs to appoint them. I can count the agricultural attachés of this country on four fingers. We are dealing with an ideological policy here while the other countries in the southern hemisphere are appointing agricultural attachés not only in all the northern hemisphere countries but also in our own part of the world, to the north of us. They are sending trade missions overseas and they have been doing so for years. They have concluded trade contracts for their dairy products and their meat. I wonder whether hon. members on the other side know that for more than a year Australia has been selling her old cows and bulls to America under contract at fantastic prices? When we talk about trade agreements, it is pathetic to think that we have representatives in this House who travelled overseas for years and returned with recommendations to the Ministers concerned that not only should agricultural attachés be appointed in many countries but that trade agreements should also be entered into to protect agriculture in our country in regard to the sale of our agricultural products. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us how many trade agreements our country has concluded to sell our agricultural produce under contract abroad. I want to issue a challenge to the hon. the Minister even as far as Japan is concerned. I have indicated how difficult it may be to market our products in Europe and this also holds good for England and the Continent. If England does not join the Common Market, she will give preference to Commonwealth countries. That is obvious. If England joins the Market, we will find ourselves in trouble. We look towards the East in search for markets. What do we see? We see that in Tanganyika at Moshi a conference is being held at the moment. The following report appeared in this connection—

They say further—

I sincerely hope that the Japanese will not pay attention to the request to impose boycotts against South Africa because that would be silly. I hope that it will be possible for us to expand our trade with Japan because we will have to expand our trade. We must find a market abroad for our surplus agricultural production if a market cannot be found here, and where will we find markets if we can sell less and less in Europe? There are other southern hemisphere countries which may perhaps buy some of our agricultural produce. The South Americas do not have a large grape production and we may find a market there. I do not know how much propaganda we make in respect of our wine products in the South American countries, There are places there to which we could send these products but then we must do our level best to find more markets. Otherwise we will not find them. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said last evening that we must make a place for ourselves in the Euromart. I would like the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs or the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing to explain how our price structure can find a market in Europe in competition with all the other southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere countries, Canada and all the others included? How can we find a market in Europe? No one would welcome it more than members on this side of the House because the whole economic structure of the country will collapse if we cannot find markets overseas to a larger extent than is the case to-day. What is the Government’s answer? Has the Government lifted a finger to reduce production costs since prices fell and production costs rose? I am still waiting for them to reply in this connection. They say that farmers must reduce their production costs. We have done our best but if the prices of tractors and spares and artificial fertilizers rise, the farmer can do little to bring down his production costs. We also have the fact that many farmers purchased their land during a boom period, when land prices were high, and they are saddled with that burden to-day. They have to pay high rates of interest. It is fortunate that interest rates are falling because this will assist the farmer somewhat but there are so many factors which increase production costs. I am still waiting for the Minister to tell us that he will insist that the Government reduces customs tariffs on tractors and spares and artificial fertilizers and bags and similar articles used by the farmer so that production costs can be lowered. That is a cardinal point. If a man has to make a living and he has an economic unit, irrespective of the size of the unit, the production costs must be lowered and that man’s prices must be stabilized. Otherwise he cannot exist. If you force him to accept the world price without a subsidy, it is quite obvious that you will have to lower production costs until that man can accept the world price otherwise he will go bankrupt.

Did I understand you rightly to say that the surpluses which are exported must be subsidized in order to supplement the world price?

I said that it is necessary to assist agriculture by way of a consumer subsidy or producer subsidy to ensure that prices do not fall too quickly.

I am talking about the surpluses which are exported.

On a point of order, is the hon. the Minister not also affected by the rule which states that questions must be put in the usual way?

The mover of the motion raised certain points of policy of this party in connection with agriculture. I want to add that a Government or a party which is not prepared to extend its agricultural representation throughout the world and to seek markets for its country, not merely by way of an occasional mission now and again in connection with the marketing of maize and the marketing of dairy products or the marketing of citrus products and so forth, is not worth its salt, and that a Government which does not want to ensure that more trade agreements are entered into to dispose of its surplus agricultural production, is not worth its salt either. It is one of the definite aims of our party to bring this about. I say that a Government which is not prepared to ensure that the National Marketing Council is converted so as to be representative on a sound basis of agriculture and agricultural organizations, that a Government which does not want to ensure that the South African Agricultural Union is strengthened, financially and otherwise, so that it can make a positive contribution towards the solution of the problem and not merely hold conferences with foreigners, is not worth its salt. And—this serves as a reply to the question of the hon. the Minister—a Government which is not prepared to consider the adjustment of prices of agricultural products to world prices and to assist the farmers during the transition period, is not worth its salt. A Government which is not prepared to do everything in its power to reduce the production costs of the farmer, is not worth its salt. Most agricultural products can no longer be produced profitably. A Government which is not prepared to establish a drought fodder bank to ensure the survival of our stock in time of drought, is not worth its salt. I do not maintain that the Government should provide all the money in this connection. The farmers must help. The present Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing worked on a scheme for a cooperative, which sprang from the farmers, and he was the head of that organization and I was a member. The Government had to assist us financially, but the amount required to bring the co-operative into being was not even £5,000,000. A Government which is not prepared to do these things is not worthy to remain in office and a Minister who is not prepared to recommend them to his Cabinet, is not worthy of the name of Minister. I am sure that the party on the other side has men in its ranks who can take more positive action to assist agriculture than the present Minister of Agriculture has done. That is why I have pleasure in seconding this motion.

A man was walking down the street and he came upon a married couple who were quarrelling and hitting each other. When the man went to the assistance of the woman she immediately turned upon the man who was trying to help her, struck him and said, “Why are you interfering in our quarrel?” Mr. Speaker, the farming population of the Republic has rejected the United Party because of the mess which it made of agriculture and it will certainly take time and proof before the farmer of South Africa once again has confidence in the United Party. It is for that reason that a man from the north-west or from Middelburg now has to call out like a naughty boy from behind granny’s tombstone in order to make himself heard on agricultural matters. Consider for a moment the fact that the hon. member who was the mover of this motion has to speak from Cape Town (Gardens) and that his seconder, a man from Middelburg, has to speak from East London. Just think of that for a moment! Can you imagine the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F.H. Bekker) having to find an urban constituency in order to make his voice heard about agricultural matters! I cannot think of one Minister of the National Party who has ever lost his seat in an election, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself, who still represents agriculture, had to accept an urban constituency a short while ago. I wonder how Gardens will take what the hon. member said in connection with the maize problem, for example. It would be necessary to subsidize the surpluses which we have to-day to the extent of 30 cents per bag in order to raise the price to the farmer by 10 cents. The hon. member for Gardens may think perhaps that the people of the Gardens constituency know nothing about maize but he must remember that this subsidy can be made available in three ways, One can subsidize or one can increase the consumer price and if one increases the consumer price, the prices of all the poultry products and the prices of many other products sold in Cape Town will have to be increased immediately. Can one allow the price to rise further? It is interesting to note that the hon. member has moved three motions in this Parliament over the past years and I want to say with due deference to the United Party that the type of policy which they advocate is “stimulation of industry” to start with. Our people know what encouragement the United Party gave South African industries in the past. In other words, that point will not be popular. One can take their arguments point by point. Mr. Speaker, to restore the confidence of the farmers in the United Party will take far more than advocating this type of speculative policy. The people will have to have confidence that this policy can bring about a change in the position of the farmers. Far more is required to restore the confidence of the people in the United Party than a few meetings or a political auction such as they held during the past session in the north-eastern Free State. I want for a moment to discuss the three motions which the hon. member for Gardens moved, one in 1961, one in 1962 and this one to-day which is the third. If we take those motions, particularly the one which the hon. member moved in 1961, and we read the motion of last year and the motion which is now before the House, I am convinced that when I move my amendment on behalf of this side of the House, the hon. member will support it. Let me take the first motion moved in 1961—

In discussing the motion the hon. member quoted Dr. Ross, the former Director of Soil Conservation, who said—

And then followed the comments of the hon. member for Gardens—

The hon. member was worried that we would not be in a position to produce sufficient food after a while. What confidence in the farming population and in the soil of South Africa!

A lack of confidence in the Government.

Very well, let us include the Government as well, but the hon. member clearly expressed his displeasure at the farming population—a lack of confidence. But what are the facts? That on that same land, on that same soil, with that same farming population and with the same Government the country is producing so much to-day that the hon. member is worried that we shall be unable to find a market for that production. He is worried. That was his motion last year and that is his motion this year. He says that we must find markets in order to dispose of those surpluses. I say again in this connection that I am convinced that the hon. member is correct —that with its policy the Government has succeeded under the circumstances in avoiding that danger which the hon. member considered to be a very great danger. We have avoided it. Let hon. members deny that. The facts speak for themselves. I want to move the following amendment now—

1. (a) to promote agricultural production and to make it more efficient and more stable;
2. (b) to maintain an orderly and stable marketing system;
3. (c) to render assistance to farmers in distress; and
4. (d) to protect the independence and freedom of farmers;

When we come back to the motion that the hon. member moved last year we find that the hon. the Minister stated that if it were not for certain words, he would have nothing against the motion because it was a motion dealing with a downward trend in production prices and an upward tendency in production costs and the accumulation of surpluses which had to be combated. But what is the position this year and what has been achieved?

If the hon. member had moved this motion last year, he might have had some sort of case. Let me read out another quotation to him in pursuance of his speech to-day, namely, in connection with the maize problem. After the hon. member had elaborated on the maize problem, he said—

I want to say that we do not know what the surplus is going to be this year. There has not yet been an official estimate. The first estimate will be made at the end of January, the planting estimate, but the first true estimate comes at the end of February and the information is then sifted. At the moment the crop is very promising but no one can make an estimate at this stage. It can be very misleading. But we do accept the fact that there will be a large crop. Let me say, however, that the Maize Board, with the support of the Government and the policy of the Government, has been successful and that by the time the new crop is harvested towards the end of June, South Africa will have disposed of virtually the entire quantity of 62,000,000 bags from last year and the carry over from the previous year. About 5,000,000 bags will remain unsold. In other words, the market has been obtained. There are problems, not only marketing problems, but markets have been obtained. The hon. member made particular mention of dairy products. There was a surplus last year but the hon. member ought to know that the position has greatly improved. Markets have been obtained. This no longer creates a major problem. Last year in his announcement the hon. the Minister stated that certain products created problems, but under present-day circumstances the hon. member must admit that for this period the Government has succeeded in disposing of that production. The hon. member spoke about a violation of the Marketing Act. In the first place I want to ask the hon. member where it is provided in the Marketing Act that the price shall be a “cost-plus” price. I will be grateful if the hon. member will tell me. But the hon. member also made certain references to what constituted a stable or fixed price in 1948 when the National Party came into power. I do not want to remind you why the United Party was rejected at the time, but the hon. member referred to the meat position and I want to ask whether that system which was in force at the time was not the system of the United Party which the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) called a “mess”? The hon. member described that old system as a mess.

Why did you not change it?

We did change it.

After three years.

The hon. member is admitting that we changed the mess.

You wasted time.

Now the hon. member complains that we wasted time but the hon. member’s seconder himself said that it was a mess. But apart from the meat scheme of the United Party which was a mess, I want to ask the hon. member what the basis was of the prices of all the other products, amongst others maize, and which prices were determined during the period of office of the United Party. The Marketing Act must give stability, and that has been maintained. Let the hon. member read his past speeches. The hon. member complained that the State had not yet taken steps to obtain more officials to control the whole project. Because the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. S. M. van Niekerk) was away for so long, I want to refer to the figures. The hon. member for Gardens referred repeatedly to planning and complained about the shortage of officials, but they are doing their best. He referred to the number of officials in Technical Services who numbered 2.308 in 1947. to-day they number 4,473. Let us mention the various sections. In 1947 under the United Party Government …

That was just after the war.

It was two years after the war. [Interjection.] There were 93 extension officers then and in 1962 there were 234; there were 718 research workers and now there are 1,324; there were 638 in technical services and now there are 1,077; there were 294 in the general section and now there are 1,322. But we must remember that one of the experts said the other day that a country required at least 500,000 to 600,000 people in managerial positions during its developmental stage, the stage in which we are at present, whereas we only have 10,000 or 12,000. In other words, we have a population of 3,000,000 White people and 12,000,000 Bantu and we must realize that unless we appoint every White man in South Africa as an official there will always not be enough to meet the needs of the country. There is no question about that.

But let us look at something else to which the hon. member also referred last year and in connection with which he again quoted figures this year to show that the total income of agriculture had fallen. I do not want to accuse the hon. member of having given us the wrong figures but he used certain figures for his purposes merely to support his argument. Up to 1956-7 there was a rise in the total agricultural production and then we had a gradual decline over two years, and these were the figures which the hon. member used to prove his point in his previous speech. Why did the hon. member not use the further figures in 1961 as well because they prove just the opposite—that there has been a gradual rise? If one takes the 1954-5 figure at 100, it is to-day 115; in other words, we are still experiencing this gradual rise in our total income. But he takes figures to compare with the total income of the country and to show that the position of agriculture has been maintained. There was a very small decrease, less than 3 per cent. There was an increase in the total income but the seconder of the motion said that there was a decrease in the income of the farmer. Was the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) wrong when he spoke about a decrease and when he said that so many farmers had given up farming? I would like an answer from the hon. member. Let me give the hon. member another figure. I stated at the outset that the position had been maintained and that a greater production had been forthcoming from the same land. The hon. member for East London (City) referred to a decrease in our animal population, but is that correct? Far more sheep and cattle have been slaughtered and yet we have been able to maintain their numbers. I want to know how else that can be done other than by proper planning and guidance to the farmers, and the farmers accept it and admit it. We have perhaps discussed farm planning more than farming planning at this stage because there are three aspects of this matter. There is the production aspect, the financial aspect and the marketing aspect. The hon. member must accept the fact that the production aspect has to a large extent been solved by the guidance given to the farmers by the Government. I do not know what is actually meant in the motion by “planning”, because that planning has resulted in our having a surplus production. Marketing was satisfactory. I do not want to say any more about the number of stock slaughtered, but their numbers were maintained notwithstanding the great increase in the number slaughtered. [Interjection.] The hon. member has been completely at sea. He has blown hot and cold.

I want to emphasize one point in the amendment although my seconder will elaborate further on it. Before I do so I want to refer once again to this motion of the hon. member. He gave two reasons why the Ministers should resign. He spoke about the obvious lack of planning. That is what his motion deals with although he Spoke about everything else but that. I think that I have succeeded in proving that as far as the production potential is concerned, the Government has succeeded in its efforts. This is due not only to the policy of the Ministers of Agriculture; they are merely implementing the policy of the Government. If hon. members have no confidence in it, they should move that the Government should resign. With a few officials at their disposal, these Ministers have succeeded beyond expectation in solving the production difficulties and assisting the farmers. That is why we should like to know why these Ministers should resign. The United Party will have to do more than make election speeches before the farmers believe them. I want to refer to one point, the necessity for protecting the independence and freedom of the farmer. The hon. member for East London (City) referred to this. I accept the fact that he agrees and that that is why he has read those quotations. If land prices rise, production costs increase. Does the hon. member suggest that the State should take steps to control land prices?

Your Minister said so.

Why did you quote it?

I only quoted what you have said all along.

Wait a moment. The hon. member must not be so hasty. Was it not the United Party who started with control when a settler received land from the State? [Interjection.] No, it has nothing to do with the Marketing Act. It was the Land Settlement Act which provided that a person who received land from the State could not sell it; it remained State property, and it was the National Party Government which changed it again. I think the hon. member for Gardens agrees with me that we have reached a new era, that a third era has developed in farming. The first era was merely one of self-support and the second era was to supply the local market. The farmers have developed tremendously, beyond all expectation, and no matter what our problems are to-day, it is with a feeling of gratitude and pride that we see how South Africa’s farmers have developed; how that development has outstripped our industrial development. In other words, the farmers have outstripped the general level of development and we must be careful during this new phase lest we make a mistake, and I accept the fact that the Government is obliged to give a great deal of support during the transition period. The hon. member had a great deal to say about maize consumption. Does he know that the State subsidize the maize consumption for stock feeding purposes by more than 50 cents per bag? Nevertheless, not much use has been made of this scheme and the hon. member must tell me how much higher the subsidy must be before it will be used. One cannot subsidize an export market because the moment that one does so. one comes into conflict with the World Food Organization and one comes up against tariff walls. I would like to have exchanged a few words with the hon. member about the Euromart but the hon. member did not prove that he understood the implications of it all.

I want to conclude by saying that I am grateful for the task which the farmers have performed in South Africa and that I have confidence and faith in the soil of South Africa. The farmer has proved that with the support of the State he will be able to carry and feed a much bigger population. I also have full confidence in the measures which have been taken by the Government and I expect great development in South Africa.

I second the amendment. There is probably no easier task than to come to this House with a few generalities, as the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) has done for the past three years and to say that the farmers are struggling. It is also easy to add that the farmers are in trouble because of a lack of planning. The motion of the hon. member for Gardens this morning is very similar to his motion of 1961, as the mover of this amendment has already said, except that the hon. member went further this morning. He has been more daring to-day. He has moved that the two Ministers responsible for agricultural matters be asked by this House to resign. If these two Ministers were to be so silly, or if this House, by some misfortune or other, were to adopt this resolution, I wonder how far it would satisfy the hon. member for Gardens? Of course, nobody gives it a thought, but I want to put this to the hon. member: Let us imagine that the two Ministers of Agriculture handed in their resignations to the hon. the Prime Minister and that the hon. the Prime Minister appointed two other capable men on this side of the House as Ministers of Agriculture; would that hon. member not move a motion next year in the same terms as the motions which he has moved for the past three years, and would he not use the same arguments? No, the hon. member for Gardens has nothing against these two hon. Ministers. He could just as well have moved that this House requests the Minister of Economic Affairs or the Minister of Bantu Administration or the Minister of Information to resign.

Hear, hear!

They have a grievance against every Minister, and why? Is it because there is a specific agricultural problem that the two Ministers have to resign? No, they would like to see the whole Cabinet resign.

Hear, hear!

They want to see a change of government and of policy. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman), who seconded this motion, offered a solution to certain agricultural problems at a time when he was still closely concerned with agriculture. He alleged at the time—I refer to his much-resented Queenstown speech two years ago when he stated that he feared that he would no longer be able to sell South Africa’s wool because he was afraid that his honour as a person would be attacked if he had to take the Chair at the meetings of the International Wool Secretariat. Then he spoke about marketing problems which had apparently placed South Africa in such a position that she could no longer do any business and his solution was that “the Government must change its policy”.

I still say so.

But since you left the Wool Board, the price of wool has risen.

We know what hon. members want. They want what the A.N.C. wanted —that Japan should impose a boycott against us. They want to have our policy changed to satisfy the A.N.C. If it is not our policy that has to be changed, I challenge any hon. member on the other side to say what they want. No, things are going well with agriculture in this country and in fact the hon. member for Gardens said so. He said that things were going well in certain sections and not so well in others.

That was what the Minister said, not I.

It appears to me that the hon. member for Gardens is no longer so sure that things are not going well with the farmers, because he now wants us to assume the responsibility for that allegation. I say that it is not only their allegation that things are not going well with the farmers which causes them to move this motion. They are in favour of a change of policy in South Africa and this motion is merely a cog in the machinery which they want to set in motion.

I want to come immediately to the amendment that we have moved. We say that this House expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the Government for the steps which have been taken in the first place to promote agricultural production and to make it more efficient and more stable. We have had two divergent allegations here this morning, which to my mind were very peculiar, in connection with our production. The hon. member for East London (City) seconded the motion of the hon. member for Gardens and wanted to know what was wrong in South Africa; what had happened here to make our production lag behind so much. Listening to the hon. member for East London (City), one would imagine that one was again living in the years 1944-5 when we had food rationing. One would imagine that there was a great shortage of food in the country because according to him our production has not increased at all. But the hon. member for Gardens was concerned about the large surpluses and he even went so far as to say that the farmers’ costs were rising very steeply because they had to buy so many bags to take the large crop of maize and they had to pay large sums for threshing that large crop of maize. I did not expect that from the hon. member for Gardens, but if that should be so, then it is no wonder that he can no longer plead the cause of the farmers from Prieska but has to do so from Gardens.

What is the position with regard to our production? We say that we have made production more efficient and more stable. In this connection I want to say something about research in agriculture which has resulted in our production being so stable. I listened attentively to the hon. member for Gardens who objected to the fact that there were insufficient extension officers and that not enough research was being done. I think it is necessary to dwell on this point for some time. The figures which the hon. member for Christiana gave him in this connection were quite adequate but I want to put this to the hon. member: If we look at our research stations, at our agricultural colleges, at our institutes, even technological institutes, and if we look at our veterinary laboratory, we cannot help feeling proud of the fact that we have built up a research service in South Africa equal to the best in the world.

Is that the work of this Government?

Much of it is the work of this Government. The hon. member must not provoke me. He makes me think of Uilspieël who saw people sleeping on feather beds so he also got hold of a feather and slept on it and the next day he said that he wondered how people could endure sleeping on so many feathers because he had slept on only one and his body was very sore. When the hon. member for Christiana spoke just now about the achievements of this Government, that hon. member said: “But we did pass the Marketing Act”; he does have one feather on which to sleep! Mr. Speaker, our research service to my mind is one of our finest achievements in South Africa. I wonder whether the difficulty of the hon. member for Gardens is not that to which his good friend—I take it that Mr. Jannie van Wyk is a good friend of his—referred yesterday afternoon when he opened the Robertson Show and said [translation]—

The point that I want to make is this: If hon. members complain that we are not receiving the necessary information, that we do not have the necessary research and training, they are doing an injustice to these organizations throughout South Africa. I think these organizations constitute one of South Africa’s greatest achievements; they are organizations from which other countries with older civilizations and with far larger populations than South Africa draw their knowledge and in connection with which they speak in laudatory terms of the achievements of South Africa. But I want to refer to something else in regard to which the hon. member for Gardens did not do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, I am not dealing so harshly with the hon. member for Gardens that he has to get protection from the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). The hon. member for Gardens tried to prove that this side of the House was also objecting to the fact that we do not have the necessary technicians in the Department of Agriculture, and he also tried to suggest that the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) had made certain accusations against the Minister. We asked him what the Minister’s reply was and he said that the Minister merely replied that it was the fault of the United Party Government because they had closed the agricultural colleges during the war years. For his information I now want to quote the actual reply of the hon. the Minister to the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Hansard, Vol. 4, col. 5596)—

He went on to explain (col. 5598)—

But hon. members are trying to create the impression now that these were the only increases in the salaries of technicians during the period of office of the National Party Government. This is the increase which the hon. the Minister announced last year but I want my hon. friends to investigate how many increases there have been since 1948 which have attracted large numbers of technicians to agricultural research, as the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) has already shown. No, they will no longer impress the farmers of South Africa with this type of sophistry, if I may call it that—to suggest here that nothing has been done and that the only reply which they have been given has been to put the blame for this lack of technicians onto the United Party Government. The United Party makes me think of a game which I believe the hon. member for Vredefort also played in his childhood days, when we sang this little song

And if you said “perske-konfyt” you had to stand behind Jan and if you said “tamatlekonfyt” you had to stand behind Piet. The United Party is trying that sort of game in vain with the farmer of South Africa. They ate trying in vain to make a political football of him. The farmer of South Africa will not allow himself to be impressed by these allegations.

I want to discuss soil conservation and research and this brings me in the first place to the question of soil conservation which the hon. member did not mention this morning as he usually does. He has already said that one can drive through this country for miles without seeing a single contour bank, and he wanted to know what the Government was doing in connection with soil conservation. I do not want to give figures to the Opposition to show what the Government has already done to stabilize our production. I just want to mention facts to them, facts which we all know. When we talk about water conservation and the lack of water in our irrigation dams, these hon. members join us in saying that as a result of soil conservation we no longer have a flow in our river beds and that our dams remain empty. This is said each year by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) who is not present here this morning. They are correct there. I have previously quoted here what was said three or four years ago by Mr. Langenecker when he said that as the result of soil conservation, in 10 years’ time, we would find that in most of our river beds there would no longer be a flow which we would be able to use for irrigation purposes. Mr. Speaker, in the Eastern Cape we have had a record rainfall over the past month, a rainfall such as we had not had since the 19th century. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman), who lives in the catchment area of the Fish River Dams, will also be able to tell you how strong the flow in that river bed was, so much so that the dams in the Fish River valley were 15 per cent full the day before yesterday. We need no longer test the effectiveness of soil conservation by the number of contour banks which the hon. member for Gardens sees in travelling through the country; we can see what the effect of it is by looking at the amount of valuable water which still flows down our river beds and the amount of water we are retaining on our soil.

Then hon. members of the Opposition say that there is a lack of planning; they say that there are insufficient technical officers, but I want to ask every member who has any knowledge of agriculture just to look at what is taking place in his own area. I believe that the experience of every member over there will be what mine has been, and that is this: One notices that a certain farmer has his farm planned; he carries out that planning and he draws his maximum soil conservation subsidy; he erects the maximum number of camp fences as far as his planning permits. As soon as he begins to see the advantages of that planning there is no end to his own planning; he himself then builds additional dams; he erects his own inside camps; a camp which was first planned as one camp is again divided into two or three camps and where provision was first made for only one drinking place in that camp, he now has two or three or four drinking places. Has that not also been the experience of those hon. members who now come and tell us that there is a lack of planning? Have they not also noticed these things in their own areas? I want to ask the hon. member for East London (City) how much water has flowed down the Brak River in recent times? Their own experiences and their own observations refute every argument advanced by them in connection with the lack of planning—arguments which they advance here in order to make some political capital.

I want to say something else about production. The hon. member for Gardens who is so sorry this morning because the maize producers have to buy so many bags and have to pay so much in threshing charges, was afraid in 1961, when he quoted Dr. Ross here, that towards the end of this century we would no longer be able to feed the people of South Africa. I want to put this to him and to the hon. member for East London (City)—both of them know how many irrigation dams have been built during the period of office of the National Party Government—and now the hon, member for East London (City) must not go and sit on his one and only feather and tell me what they did in connection with the building of dams. I give them credit for every dam that they built but how many dams have been built by the National Party Government? He need only go to his own constituency and look at the Beervlei Dam which has been completed, at the Mentz Lake wall which has been raised and at the Commando Drift Dam which has been completed. I want to ask hon. members whether they were joking when they said last year that there would be surplus production when all the various schemes came into operation. I refer them to the Pongola Scheme and to the Kougat Scheme in my constituency; I refer them to the Orange River project which will benefit the largest part of South Africa. Does this reveal planning or does it reveal a lack of planning? Will our production be stimulated by it and will our production be stabilized by it, or are we just wasting our time on trivialities, such as the cost of bags for a large harvest? No, as far as this Government is concerned and as far as these two Ministers are concerned, to my mind they have a fine record as far as planning, research, information services and training are concerned. The fact that the farmer of South Africa is anxious to make use of these things is proved by the fact that our agricultural colleges are full and that our agricultural schools are being used to the full extent. These achievements of the National Party Government are achievements which they can never reason away, no matter how much they try, and they will not win a single vote by doing so, no matter how much they harp on the subject.

I want to come now to the second part of our amendment, namely, to maintain an orderly and stable marketing system.

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

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended before lunch, I had already shown why the House ought to express its appreciation to the Government for the steps which have been taken to promote agricultural production and to make it more efficient and more stable, and I was starting to show how this Government was maintaining and had maintained an orderly and stable marketing system. The two products which the hon. member for Gardens brought to the attention of the House this morning were the two products of which we have a surplus at the moment, the marketing of which is giving us some trouble, namely maize and dairy products. I want frankly to admit here that I know very little about the cultivation of maize, as little as the hon. member for Gardens and as little as the hon. member for East London (City), but as the House has already listened this morning to two members who know nothing about the cultivation of maize, I think that it would be very unfair for a third member also to discuss a product about which he knows little, although I do want to say a few things in this connection. Hon. members gave the impression that the Government could solve the problem of the maize farmer in the first instance by only considering production costs and by adding a reasonable entrepreneur’s wage and a profit margin, and making that the price. If this was done, the whole problem would be solved. The two hon. members who have spoken thus far have not yet told us what they will do with a maize surplus, with the exception of the hon. member for East London (City) who explained that he would conclude new trade agreements with other countries. Hon. members are aware of the fact that the export market is also a limited market but where you have to deal with an export market, even though it may absorb everything which we produce in excess of our local consumption, one still has to contend with a world market price, and one cannot sell one’s products at a price in excess of that world market price. The policy of this Government was and is to comply with the primary requirement of the Marketing Act, namely, orderly marketing; in the first instance to comply with domestic requirements at a reasonable price, a price at which the consumer can buy, and to export the surplus at the best price obtainable and in this way to give the producer such a price that he will be able to continue to produce in the future.

I just want to say in connection with the production of dairy products, particularly butter which has also been referred to, that hon. members opposite are very anxious to have an increased local consumption, but if we follow the reasoning of both hon. members who spoke this morning and if prices have to be determined only on the basis of production costs plus a reasonable entrepreneur’s wage and, in their view, there is to be no reduction in price, this must necessarily bring about an increase in the local market price. Hon. members cannot get away from that; it is inexorable economic law. I want to ask them how the local consumption of maize would be stimulated if the price to the local consumer was increased? We have the case of butter. Last year and this year too hon. members complained when the price of butter was reduced last year. They hold the view that local consumption must be stimulated. Last year the price of butter was reduced by 5 cents per lb. of which the producer contributed 2½ cents per lb. and the Government 2½ cents per lb. by way of subsidy. They complained vociferously about this. In their view it was simply no longer profitable to produce butter; according to them the dairy farmers were bankrupt. But what was the result of the price reduction? It resulted in the fact that during the first year after the price reduction, butter was brought within the reach of the less privileged section of the people and its consumption increased by 6,000,000 lbs. If one wishes to increase the local consumption of maize which is about 30,000,000 bags per year, as the hon. member for Gardens knows, or ought to know, the worst way of going about it is to increase the local price. [Interjections.] No. Now hon. members say that that is what they said, but if they had said so, on what do they base their reasoning that a price determination should only be made on the basis of production costs plus an entrepreneur’s wage? One cannot do that then when one has to deal with a world market which has to absorb nearly half of one’s production. The hon. member shakes his head but that is something that he must consider. It is an economic law and he cannot get past it. The same thing holds good for butter and other dairy products. One cannot get away from the fact that in South Africa, where we have products which we cannot consume locally and have therefore to export large quantities of those products, we have always to bear the world market and the foreign market in mind. It is very easy for the hon. member for East London (City) to tell us that we should appoint trade attachés and that we should listen to people who have been overseas. If the hon. member for East London (City) could have left a dustline on the sea during the period that he was chairman of the Wool Board, that dustline would still have been there as a result of all his journeys overseas to market wool. What else did the hon. member achieve but to tell us that he did not see his way clear to finding better markets unless we changed our policy? That was all that the hon. member Would report in that connection. No, when it is necessary to make price adjustments so that it is still profitable for the producer to produce but his product must be brought within the reach of the local consumer, this Government has always had the courage in most cases to lower prices, a reduction in price which the producer has always been able to stand.

You were not listening.

The hon. member for Drakensberg will probably give us more information this afternoon. Perhaps she will give us more information which will help us to solve this problem of surplus production. There are three categories into which we can divide our products. The one category deals with products which are produced Tor the export market only. It does not seem as though hon. members opposite have any objection to foreign prices, prices which are completely beyond our control. Those products are produced specifically for export. I have in mind such products as wool, mohair and also a large portion of our citrus production. There are products which are produced for both the local and foreign markets, for example, deciduous fruits and citrus fruits which can also be placed in this category. Their objection does not appear to lie there either. Their great difficulty—and it was in this connection that hon. members tried to make out a case this morning—involves these products which are produced specifically for local consumption, and when our domestic requirements have been met, the surplus has to be disposed of in some way or other in order to maintain a stable price locally for the farmer. It is particularly for those products that the Marketing Act makes provision; it is those products for which a local market must in the first instance be obtained, The price of that product must be adjusted so that it is within reach of the local consumer because if this is not done, one will merely succeed in cutting down the consumption of these products. This Government has ensured that where there is a surplus and it must be exported, it is exported at the best possible world price, even though it means that in a case like that of butter, to which I referred just now, in one year we lost R3,000,000 on the butter which we exported because we were saddled with an increased production and with a surplus of 19,000,000 lbs. of butter. Then hon. members complain when in such cases the producer is asked to take 2½ cents per lb. less.

In connection with wool I was surprised that hon. members did not blame the Government for the drop of 10,000,000 lbs. in our wool production during the first six months of the past wool season. Because of the drought—I want to quote from the monthly report of the South African Wool Commission—for the first six months, namely from 1 July to 31 December, we produced 10,000,000 lbs. less wool, namely 155,000,000 lbs. as against 165,000,000 lbs. in the previous year, so much so that three auctions had to be cancelled in those six months because less wool was available. We were, however, in this fortunate position that we experienced a price increase during that period of 6.9 per cent or 2.19c per lb. as against the corresponding six months of the previous year. This resulted in the fact that the value of the wool for those six months amounted to R20,370 more than the amount for the previous year. They do not appear to have any objection to that nor do they want to ask the Ministers to resign because of it.

Take the case of mohair. This Government has since placed mohair on a stable basis; it has established a Mohair Advisory Board which also makes its contribution and is also active in seeking a stable market abroad to assist the mohair producer to obtain a more stable price for his product. Mr. Speaker, orderly marketing is the aim of this Government, orderly marketing under conditions with which the United Party never had to contend during its period of office because it was saddled with shortages. It was the task of this Government to make use of the Marketing Act to market the surpluses. I think that the Government is worthy of all praise—and the farmers admit it—for the way in which it has treated the farmers in time of surpluses.

I come now to the third reason why we on this side of the House want to express our appreciation to the Government and that is because it has given assistance to farmers in distress. If one listens to hon. members opposite, one is brought to believe—and that is also the impression that they try to create— that this Government has not the slightest sympathy with the farmers. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) even went so far as to say that this Government would like to see the farmers bankrupt. I do not know for what reason. I wonder whether in her case the wish is not father to the thought? They would like to see bankruptcy. They would like to see the farmers in trouble because that fact may perhaps give them some party political advantage, political advantage to a party which has been rejected by the farmers in the past and will be rejected by them in the future. I do not think that I can give a better resumé of the assistance given to farmers than that given by Volkskas in one of its recent bulletins. These are all official figures. It will take me longer to mention them myself than to quote them as they appear in this bulletin. They say. [Translation.]

If we analyse all these figures in connection with loans to farmers who have not had the necessary capital themselves or who have experienced a lack of credit facilities during the past 14 years of National Government, it is an achievement which is head and shoulders above that of any other Government in South Africa. It is a record which the National Party is not ashamed of; it is a record of which its Ministers responsible for Agriculture and Finance can be proud. It is also for that reason that this House expressed its appreciation to the Government.

In the last point of our amendment we express appreciation for the independence and the freedom of the farmer which is being protected by this Government. We listened to interesting speeches this morning from the other side. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) quoted from a speech— I do not know from whose speech—to the effect that in other countries they ensure that production costs do not rise too high and that land prices are controlled. I do not think that that is the policy of his Party but I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no other factor which has a greater effect upon one’s production costs than the amount of capital which one has invested. To a certain extent one has control over one’s other production costs. One can perhaps make better use of one’s labour; one can perhaps produce with less labour. One can perhaps use less machinery but there is one thing over which one has no control after one has invested one’s capital, and that is the interest on that capital. If I understand those hon. members correctly and if their attitude is the correct one—they are always harping on the question of production costs and saying that it is the task of this Government to control production costs— then this Government should have a say over land prices. I want to ask that hon. member whether he is prepared to come to Somerset-East and tell the Swaershoek farmers—he knows them all very well; he sold his land there and sought pastures new—that they may not pay more than a certain amount for their land. I wonder what will happen if he tells Mr. T. J. Jordaan, the holder of the Holden trophy as the farmer in that part of the world who has done most for agriculture in South Africa: “Look here, you have enough land and you may not pay more than a certain amount for land”, when those farmers recently still paid up to R104 per morgen for grazing land? I wonder what will happen if they tell the farmers what to produce, if they tell the farmers: “You cannot plant more maize than you planted before because there is a surplus, or “You cannot produce more dairy products”? No. Mr. Speaker, this Government gives the farmers freedom to produce what they consider will enable them to meet their obligations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. Our amendment states that we affirm our full confidence in our two Ministers of Agriculture in view of the competent manner in which, through efficient planning, they have guided the agricultural industry through its difficult years of adjustment. I want to affirm that not only in this House but in the country as well the farmers have confidence in the National Government and in the Ministers under whose guidance and under whose care agriculture has been placed. [Time limit.]

I wonder why the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) seconds this amendment. Is the reason perhaps that he is afraid that one of the Ministers will resign and that he wants to improve his chances to fill that post if one of them resigns? If it should happen that the hon. member for Somerset East takes one of their places, I will be even more sorry than I am to-day for the farmers and their interests. What has the hon. member for Somerset East told us? He has told us that the National Party has a proud record; look at our agricultural schools and colleges and you will find that they are filled to capacity! Full use is being made of them! But here I have before me a speech by Dr. Henning, the Director of Technical Services of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. When it comes to agricultural training, the hon. member for Somerset East must forgive me if I take the word of Dr. Henning rather than his. What does he say? He spoke during a diploma ceremony at the Potchefstroom Agricultural College on 27 October 1961 and said—

Does all that point to a lack of training facilities?

I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that when it comes to this matter I prefer to accept the word of Dr. Henning. According to Dr. Henning, this is definitely to-day one of the greatest weaknesses in our agricultural structure. He also says this—

But then the hon. member for Somerset East says that they are filled to capacity. Then he says this—

That is what Dr. Henning says. But it is not only the climatic conditions; it is the agricultural policy of this Government which makes it impossible for the prospective farmer to enter the industry. Even though a farmer has sons whom he would like to have agricultural training, he does not have the courage to send those sons to the colleges, because what will their future be when they leave those colleges and enter the agricultural industry? The hon. member for Somerset East says we must see how many dams the farmers have already built and how much soil conservation they have applied. The hon. member is very satisfied with what has already been done, but let us listen to a member of the Soil Conservation Board—and not to the hon. member for Somerset East. Mr. de Villiers Loubser addressed a soil conservation conference in the South-Western Districts, and according to the Burger of 29 October 1962 he said the following—

Then the hon. member for Somerset East says we must go and see what has been done in the Karoo and we will find that a tremendous amount of work has been done. Of course much work has been done, Sir. Our argument is not that nothing was done in the past, but that this Government is not prepared to face the facts of the matter in the way this member of the Soil Conservation Board was prepared to face them, namely that unless we have more extension officers we will not be in a position properly to implement our soil conservation plans in South Africa.

Apart from the splendid record to which he referred, the hon. member for Somerset East said in conclusion that he was surprised that we had said nothing about wool and mohair. But surely he knows, and the Minister also knows, that we have no say over the prices obtained for these products. He knows that they are sold in the open market. The fact that the farmer now receives good prices for his wool and mohair, says the hon. member for Somerset East, is due to the Government! He pretends that this Government is responsible for it. But then the hon. member must also shoulder the responsibility for the fall in the price a few years ago. But that he does not do.

What is still more serious is the attack made by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) on the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) and the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). He says it shows how little confidence the farmers have in the United Party that those two hon. members for Gardens and East London (City) should have to plead their case here. [Interjections.] Yes, he can include me also. But, Sir, it is not that side of the House which should be ashamed. They are the people who represent the rural constituencies in this House, and what do they do here? They are just here to praise the hon. the Ministers for what they are doing whilst they know that the farmers outside are bitterly dissatisfied. If there is a party which should be ashamed of itself it is the party opposite. They should be ashamed because they were not prepared to make constructive suggestions as to how these two Ministers could remedy the position. The hon. member for Christiana says the farmers will never have confidence in the United Party, and then he says again that it will take a long time for them to have confidence. I admit that it usually takes a long time for a man to have confidence in somebody else. But I do know that it takes a very short time to lose confidence, and that is what is taking place with this Government. The farmers of South Africa will increasingly have to look even to the urban representatives on this side of the House to protect their interests. Let me assure hon. members that we will not hesitate to do so, because we do not see South Africa in various facets, but as a whole. If a certain sector of our economy find things difficult it is the bounden duty of the Opposition to state the case of those people. The farmers of South Africa have their committees and their congresses; they get together and discuss various matters. And if the Government is not prepared to give attention to it, do they want us to sit here quietly and say that the farmers of the country are satisfied? Is that what they expect of us? Do they expect us as an Opposition to do nothing when we see that they are harming the agriculture of South Africa?

What do we find to-day? We find that even the Landbou-weekblad and certain other bodies interested in agriculture have to bring certain matters to the notice of the Government. Here I have an extract from the Landbou-weekblad published a year or so ago. This is an article by “Manie”—he is almost like “Dawie” in the Burger. It is so nice to write under a pseudonym so that one can get in a dig here and there. “Manie” says this—

He goes on—

That is the advice we get. That is the advice the farmer of South Africa gets, to keep that hot potato there. Do hon. members opposite want to tell us that we should not do our duty in bringing to the notice of the Government the grievances of the people outside? No, I repeat that the Opposition would have failed in its duty if it had not brought the grievances of the farmers to the notice of the Government.

Now what are the grievances of the farmers? What are the difficulties with which they are faced? I want to say at once that although there are various types of farmers—grain farmers, maize farmers, potato farmers, dairy farmers, etc.—I think that there is some resemblance between all of them. We are all using labour to keep the various branches of the industry going. We are all mechanizing; we are all trying to farm more efficiently; we are all faced with the problem of rising costs of production and falling prices. When we take part in this debate to-day we do not talk on behalf of any specific farmer. If one particularly refers to one class of farmer, that is only to illustrate one’s case. We know that a matter which affects every farmer is the problem of the rising costs of production and the falling produce prices. What I find interesting, Sir, is that none of the hon. members opposite even referred in their speeches to the rising costs of production, nor in their amendment. How can the Government stabilize the agricultural industry unless it devotes attention to the rising costs of production? I admit that production costs may vary from farm to farm and from area to area, but there are some items in the cost of production over which this Government in fact has control and to which they ought to devote attention.

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel), who is not here now, is a prominent farmer in the Free State, and what did he say about the position of the farmers in the Free State? According to the Oosterlig of 30 August 1962, he addressed the Free State Agricultural Union and said the following—

Terribly small farmers! And unless steps are taken to assist these people to reduce their production costs I cannot see how there can be any future for them. And the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite should not tell us now that they are not responsible if these people produce, as the Minister did last year in the Free State when he said: If our farmers are under the impression that they can just continue producing more of a product than can be consumed internally whilst maintaining the price in the country, they are making a mistake.

Of course. What would you do?

I just want to point out that the motion of the hon. member for Gardens is so correct because there is no planning and no guidance, because a few years ago the Minister addressed the S.A. Agricultural Union in Sea Point, and according to the Landbou-weekblad he then told them—

He then told the farmers not to think of producing less, but of the demand. Then he went to the Free State and told the fanners: If you produce as much as you like you must not think that the Government can guarantee the price for you.

Don’t distort my words now.

I am just quoting what the Minister said a year ago at Sea Point, and what he told the farmers in the Free State last year. The Minister says that it is not the Government’s responsibility if the farmers produce, but here I have an article written by Dr. Scholtz of the Mealie Control Board in Agricon of January 1962—

In the paragraph “Developments since 194950” (i.e. under this Government) he says—-

Because maize is a staple food in South Africa it was the policy of the Government to encourage the farmers to produce more by giving them higher prices, and now that there are surpluses the Minister tells the Nationalists in the Free State: “You can no longer come to us if you just want to produce as you like”, But that was the encouragement given by the Minister himself.

You are again distorting my words.

Here I have before me an article written by Dr. Scholtz, an important official of the Mealie Board, and he says that this is the policy of the Government, and a former Minister of Agriculture also said so. But now that they have to find a solution for the troubles of the farmers in regard to their surpluses, the Minister says that he is not responsible for it.

You are distorting my words.

Order!

I withdraw it.

That is the position in which these people find themselves to-day. They were encouraged to produce and they did so, but to-day when they have these tremendous surpluses the Government has no policy at all. We are gratified to learn from the hon. member for Christiana that the Mealie Board had succeeded in having only 5,000,000 bags over to be carried over to the next season. But what about the next season? The hon. member expects the maize crop not to remain at 60,000,000 bags, but says that there is a strong possibility that it may be 70,000,000 bags or more. What then? Must we then follow the policy suggested by the hon. member for Ladybrand, the chairman of the Mealie Board, in a letter in reply to the S.A. Agricultural Union in connection with the policy of the Mealie Board—

In other words, the maize farmers can expect in the following season that if there is a crop of 70,000,000 bags there will be a strong possibility that their prices will be still further decreased. The hon. member for Ladybrand says this—

In other words, the future of the maize farmer in South Africa, with his tremendous efficiency and his tremendous production potential does not become clearer but increasingly darker under this Government. If that is the position. Sir, I am not surprised that the Prime Minister had to intervene in the agricultural debate at the National Party Congress last year in Bloemfontein. Because there one of the Nationalists himself, Mr. Jurg Human, of Warden said, according to the Burger 13 September last year, that at Warden they had fought the Ministers of Agriculture with bare fists.

The point is not who fought, but who won.

I am sure the farmers did not win. But hon. members opposite know what the position is. They allege that they are protecting the independence of the farmers in South Africa and therefore they want to express confidence in these two Ministers. But by what yardstick does one measure the independence of the farmers? Does one measure it perhaps by what they owe to the Land Bank, to the numbers of mortgages held there? Whilst we know that the number of farmers in South Africa is becoming increasingly smaller, the mortgages are increasing. If there is a party which has enslaved the farmer of South

Africa to the Land Bank and the Farmers’ Assistance Board, it is this Government as the result of the agricultural policy they followed. If the farmers of South Africa had been given the chance to make a decent living and if they could have obtained a decent price for their products, and if they had been assisted to reduce their costs of production, we would not have had this enormous amount of debt with the Land Bank and the Farmers’ Assistance Board to-day. But then hon. members opposite still have confidence in the Ministers because they are alleged to protect the farmers of South Africa.

How are you doing on your farm? Fairly well?

I want to quote what the Prime Minister said. We are now being told that we want to undermine the independence of the farmer by saying, e.g., how much land he may have and how much he may divide amongst his children. But what does the Prime Minister say?—

Is it the Opposition which says that? It is the Minister of Agricultural Economics and the Prime Minister who made this new statement of policy. The Minister of Agricultural Economics repeatedly says that there should be a new approach in respect of the agricultural industry and that steps must be taken to ensure that the farmers will no longer be able to do what they want, and then hon. members opposite still have the temerity to suggest that we should have confidence in this Government because they want to protect the independence of the farmers of South Africa! No, Sir, I hope hon. members opposite agree with us on one point at least, namely that things are going badly with the farmers. If we have at least determined that, we know what further steps we can take.

Surely you know that that is not correct.

The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la Rey Venter) says that what I am saying is not correct. Am I now to accept what the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) said, or am I to accept what was said e.g by Mr. de la Harpe de Villiers?

What about yourself?

The hon. member is one of the richest farmers in this House, but now he wants to compare himself with the people outside. But the hon. member knows that, as the hon. member for Bethlehem said, there are a large number of people who are small farmers in South Africa. What is their position? But for the benefit of that hon. member I want to quote what was said by Mr. de la Harpe de Villiers, the chairman of the S.A. Agricultural Union, and I quote from “Georganiseerde Landbou” of last year. He says—

Is that also the Government’s fault?

No, it was not the Government’s fault, but he says this—

I can quote what Mr. André du Toit said, but it is not necessary to do so.

What did he say?

I will come to that, but I have here an extract from the Oosterlig, in which the poultry farmers say they are angry with the Government. I say that to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) who is now glaring at me. The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg now doubts this, but the Prime Minister attended the congress of the Nationalist Party at Bloemfontein and the Burger had the following headline in connection with his speech: “Prosperity will return to farmers”. In other words, there is no prosperity now.

But I can also mention the pineapple industry. There is not a single industry in South Africa which is not in difficulty. I read here—

I find that in the Burger of 24 January of last year. If that is the position in regard to most branches of agriculture—and I have not even referred to the wheat farmers—how can we be satisfied? The hon. member knows that the wheat farmers are not satisfied with their prices.

Do you ever find satisfied people?

Is it not the duty of the Ministers of Agriculture to satisfy the majority of farmers in South Africa? My greatest criticism of the Minister is that he always tries to run away from the matter, that he always tries to find an excuse, as for example when he says that farmers should now farm more efficiently. What is the use of telling people that? Which farmer in South Africa does not try to farm as efficiently as possible? Would we have had this phenomenal expansion in production of agricultural products if our farmers were not efficient? Would we have had this tremendous increase in the sales of farm machinery if our farmers were not efficient? But now he pretends that he is telling the farmers a very wise thing when he says that they must be more efficient, something every farmer knows already. Sir, let me now quote what Mr. André du Toit said, because that is the worst of all. Mr. du Toit opened the congress of the winter rainfall area at Stellenbosch last year. He is the chairman of the K.W.V. and this is what he said under the headline “The Future of the Farmer is Not Rosy”, He was not referring to the present only, but to the future and he said this—

I hope that will satisfy hon. members now. They ask what we want to achieve now. There is at least one thing we are trying to achieve, and that is to bring hon. members opposite under the impression that things are not going well with the farmers of South Africa. And as long as they think that things are going well with the farmers, I say that they are committing a great wrong against the farmers. That is why the amendment of hon. members opposite is so deplorable. What are they going to do with this amendment of theirs?

We will adopt it.

Yes, but they will just strengthen the two Ministers of Agriculture in their lack of policy, their hopelessness and their helplessness. They should have got up and said: “We agree with you; things are not going well with the farmers; let us make plans to assist the farmers.”

What is your plan?

What use is it suggest ing plans to hon. members opposite, because they just tell us, “We do not believe you because things are going well with the farmers”, That is the attitude of hon. members opposite. That is why the hon. member for East London (City) and the hon. member for Gardens made certain constructive suggestions here, but they were just wasting their breath because hon. members opposite will devote no attention to it because they do not believe that things are going badly with the farmers. And as long as we do not have the fundamental approach of realizing that things are not going well, we will not get down to plans to put agriculture in South Africa on a sound basis.

I have here Organised Agriculture of April 1962, in which Mr. André du Toit, chairman of the K.W.V., also said that it was unfortunate that the economic aspect of agriculture did not receive the same attention that the technical aspects received in recent years. He says further—

This report is quite correct because it is not only the small farmer who is in trouble. Even the so-called independent farmer comes up every day against the wall of rising production costs and falling prices.

The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg may boast of his area, just as I may boast of the area where I live. But the hon. member can go around in his area, and what will he find? That 15. 20 or 30 years ago people could make a living on 2.000 and 3,000 and 4.000 morgen, but to-day we find that that land is all owned by one man. In other words he needed a larger unit. Why? Because in the first place the small farmer had to get rid of his land because he could not make a living, and the man who could in any way afford it had to purchase it and add it to his land in order to be able to make a living.

You do not know what you are talking about.

That hon. member has obviously not read the report dealing with the depopulation of the platteland. But I can mention numbers of farmers who are in that position. I can mention numerous cases where one man is farming on a farm on which three or four independent farmers made a living 20 or 25 years ago, and the independent farmers who to-day farm on that increased acreage are also in difficulties. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet also has such examples in his constituency.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Will he tell me how many insolvencies there were amongst the farmers under the United Party Government and how many there are to-day?

I can only refer the hon. member to the report of the Land Bank and he will see that under his Government many more loans were granted by the Land Bank than under the previous Government. That is sufficient proof that the farmers during the United Party regime must have been in a much better position than they are to-day.

May I put a question? Will it be possible in terms of the federation policy of the United Party for a Bantu to buy land in the White area?

There we now have a typical example of how the Government argues. Whilst we are discussing the problems of the farmers of South Africa, the hon. member is concerned with Bantustans. That is the only thing they have in their minds. [Time limit.]

I listened this afternoon to speeches from the Opposition on a motion which they introduced. Their motion does not deal with the difficulties and problems of the farmers but the motion deals with lack of planning on the part of the Ministers of Agriculture. Nobody in this House and nobody outside this House will deny that we are to-day faced with certain problems in the agricultural sphere. It was totally unnecessary for the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) to have made the plea which he did make because we are all aware of it that certain parts of the country are experiencing great economic and other difficulties. I do not think, however, that the object of this debate is to discuss the difficulties of the farmers.

That is not admitted.

In view of the steps the Government has taken to assist it has indeed admitted that there were difficulties. It is ridiculous to say that we do not admit it. But on an occasion such as this when a special motion has been moved by the Opposition—this is not a Budget debate or a debate to discuss the Vote of a Minister —you at least expect them when they introduce a motion in which they ask the two Ministers concerned to resign, to say that they regard themselves as the people who ought to take the place of those two Ministers. I am referring to the main speakers on the other side. You would have expected them to tell us what their plans were. But in order to introduce planning you must in the first place have a policy because you do not plan without a policy. Planning is only the carrying out of a policy.

Is that why you are not planning? Because you do not have a policy?

I would have expected hon. member to say: Look, as far as the question of policy is concerned we differ from the Government and that is why the Government’s planning is not right. But what did we get? We had a number of loose statements by the hon. member for East London (City). He alleges that the position of the farmers in Australia and New Zealand is much better than that of our farmers, that it is much better in America, that it is much better in Canada, and that it is much better in South America. It is easy to make such statements but let me tell him that every one of those countries is planning to keep fewer farmers on the land, is planning specifically to get rid of the people. If, therefore, they are so prosperous why do they want to get rid of people who are so prosperous? The hon. member must not talk such nonsense. He made other wild statements, for example, that the Government has done nothing to find markets overseas. The hon. member for East London (City) himself was at one time chairman of the Wool Board and at times he went overseas two or three times a year to look for markets and to promote markets. What did he do there? to-day he says that there has been no planning to find markets. What solution did the hon. member have in mind when he went overseas to find better markets for our wool? His solution was that the South African Government should change its policy to conform with the wishes of the Black countries and the Asiatic countries of the world, the Government should change its policy to conform with their wishes in order to get markets. The hon. member’s fellow farmers were not even prepared to join him in making that sacrifice and they kicked him out of the Wool Board. That is the kind of planning which the hon. member for East London (City) suggests. Then he talks about other people who lack planning and that is why you must take it that the United Party are the people who will produce better planning for the farmers. If that wish of his were to come true, if his plan to get better markets overseas were to come to fruition, does he think that he will still be able to sell his wool in South Africa? Their policy is that the Bantu should have representation in this Parliament, isn't it? Does he still think that it will be possible for Jan Moolman to sell his wool here? No, our farmers do not want that sort of planning and that was why they got rid of him.

Unfortunately my time is limited but I want to confine myself more specifically to the motion of the hon. member and I say this that agricultural planning can only take place on an accepted agricultural policy and if they do not agree with the agricultural policy of this Government hon. members can say that they disagree with the policy. But I want to state the five basic principles of policy on which agriculture rests, basic principles which we accept.

In the first place our agricultural policy is founded on this that the best use should be made of our natural resources, including manpower, and that agriculture is part of the whole unit; you must always bear the balanced economic development of the country in mind when you apply your agricultural policy. Do hon. members agree with that? The second principle is that of private initiative, that as far as agriculture is concerned private initiative should be left to the farmer himself. Hon. members now talk about planning and they suggest certain things in respect of which there should be planning but which is in direct conflict with the private initiative of the farmer as such. That is why I maintain that where there is planning and where that is one of your basic approaches, your planning must always take into account that it should be possible for the farmer to carry on and to farm as a free individual and if the Government then has to do certain things it follows of necessity that the basic rights of the farmer will be curtailed. Then you must curtail his right to determine what he should pay for land, how he should farm and with what. If you analyse it, Sir, we have had strange criticism here and it is this that the Government should undertake to pay a fixed price to certain groups of farmers in all circumstances. I maintain that no Government can undertake to pay a fixed price to a group of farmers without depriving them of this basic freedom. I want to ask hon. members this: Are they agreeable that we select certain branches of agriculture? We can take the maize industry or the wheat industry or the dairy industry, those industries which were criticized to-day. Are they prepared to say that in all circumstances they will pay a fixed price to those three groups of farmers? Will the hon. member for Gardens say that? He might just as well say it because his party will not come into power in any case. That is what they are pleading for, but they do not reply now. The attack which we have had—and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) referred to it—consisted entirely of this that I as Minister had said that if more of a product was produced than could be consumed locally that product should be sold at the price which could be obtained on the overseas market. But the hon. member says that is wrong; it is ridiculous. [Interjections.] I told the farmers this at their congress and I repeat it here. Surely it is the duty of the Minister to tell the farmers that if they overproduce, if they produce far in excess of the local demand, they must accept the price which offers on the export market overseas. Will the hon. member give the undertaking that if they come into power they will always pay a fixed price to those three groups of farmers.

Nobody said that.

That is the sort of attack which is launched, Sir, and when you ask them a question they do not even want to reply to it.

Did the hon. the Minister hear it when we said that the decline in the price should be gradual?

The hon. member now advances another argument and he says that it is their policy that the adaptation should be gradual. But that was exactly what this Government did. I want to know from the hon. member whether it is not better to effect the adaptation in a year when crops are good than in a year when crops are poor? Strangely enough, Sir, the Opposition does not plead for a fixed price to all the farmers. They are not pleading for that in the case of the fruit farmers or the citrus farmers or the meat farmers or the wool farmers. They only advocate that in the case of maize and dairy products, why? Not because they are so sorry for the maize farmers. Not one of them is sorry for the maize farmer. But they only advocate it in the case of those two products because they know those are the two products in respect of which there is a surplus to-day and in respect of which the overseas price is lower to-day than the price on the local market and because they think they can derive a little political advantage from it. That is the only reason.

There is a third basic principle in an agricultural policy and that is that the greatest efficiency should be maintained. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) said that I had said on one occasion that the farmers should employ more efficient farming methods. I did say that at a congress. Does he want them to farm less efficiently? The hon. member for Gardens also said that the Minister had said that the farmers should live within their means. Does he wish to encourage them to live beyond their means? He went further and said that the Minister had also told them that they should adapt themselves to circumstances and to declining prices. Should the Minister not have said that? Does the hon. member mean to tell me that his approach is that the farmers should live beyond their income, that they need not employ efficient farming methods and that they need not adapt themselves to circumstances? Is that the approach of the United Party? I merely mention these few things to show how ridiculous the points are on which the United Party are basing their attack, and then they say the two Ministers should resign. They do not say the Ministers must resign because they have better people on that side. I take it that there is such a great deal of talent in the National Party that many of our members will be able to do the work, but they lack the courage to say: Give us a chance to Show what we can do. They know that that sort of argument will not get them anywhere. I wanted to say more but time unfortunately does not permit me to do so.

A fourth important principle is that our farmers should adapt themselves to changed circumstances. Does any hon. member opposite say that it is not necessary for the farmers to adapt themselves to circumstances? He must just close his eyes and ignore the question of supply and demand and prices. All he has to do is to produce and if he produces too much it is unfortunate. Is that what they want? No, we must adapt ourselves to new circumstances, and circumstances have changed tremendously in South Africa over the past year as far as the farmer is concerned. The hon. member quoted Mr. André du Toit where he said that economic planning had fallen behind technical planning. That is true, but that has not only happened in South Africa that has happened all over the world, for the simple reason that there has been a shortage of food and it has been necessary to produce more food and the pressure of economic circumstances and surpluses has had the effect that more time had to be devoted to economic planning and the Government is doing that. The very reason why the Prime Minister split the Department of Agriculture was that more attention could be paid to giving guidance to our farmers in the economic field because circumstances are different to-day. That is the fourth basic principle and I ask hon. members whether they agree with it? No, there is dead silence.

The fourth basic principle of our policy is that the Government and the Minister of Agriculture and this party would like to see the agricultural farmer in South Africa make a living which is worthy of a human being and in order to do so he must of necessity farm on an economic unit. He should derive sufficient income from his land to live a decent life. That is a principle which we have often stated. Naturally the United Party is continually distorting it. They say we said the small farmer must leave the platteland. We never said that. What we did say was that where the State had to finance people to establish them on the land it would have to do so on the basis of an economic unit so that those people would be able to make a living worthy of a human being. Do hon. members opposite agree with that or do they differ from that? But they say the two Ministers do not do any planning; they had said the small farmer must go. I have now mentioned the five basic principles on which agriculture is founded. In this regard you can resort to various ways and means in that planning so as to carry out your policy in the direction indicated by it, and when circumstances arise such as we have to-day where agriculture has to adapt itself to new circumstances, the Government must step in, as it has already stepped in, to give assistance to the farmers in all spheres. On various occasions, with a view to the increased production which has taken place in the case of various products, surpluses which had to be exported, control boards and the Government have sent people overseas to find new markets, and with success. Attempts have been made to extend our local market and to increase consumption, also with success. All these things are done to assist in carrying out our policy. One hon. member said that the Government was doing absolutely nothing to reduce the production costs of the farmers. I just want to mention what the Government is doing in an attempt to reduce the farmers’ production costs. Fertilizer is subsidized and in 1962 that subsidy amounted to R2,690,000. Railway rebates were subsidized by the Government to the tune of R3,600,000. During the drought the cost of transporting stock amounted to R170,000 and the transport costs of stock feed R62,000. The Railways gave a subsidy of R682,000 and R105,000 in the case of the transportation of stock feed. An amount of R1,290,000 was spent by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services on soil conservation works, R29,000 on the combating of pests and plagues—a total of R8,660,000 only in respect of these services, apart from the other services which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services also rendered, such as the eradication of noxious weeds R205,000, irrigation works R111,000, the subsidy on boreholes R1,100,000. Then hon. members say the Government is not doing anything to reduce the farmers’ costs.

But apart from the reduction of costs to the farmer, the Government also provides the producer with a bigger market for his product by way of subsidies. Last year butter was subsidized to the tune of R4,500,000; wheat was subsidized to the tune of R12,900,000; maize to the tune of R9,000,000; and railway rebates amounted to R2,900,000. A total, therefore in respect of these few items only of R26,000,000 in one year only. This, together with the other amounts I have mentioned, comes to over R34,000,000, money spent directly on production and also on markets, and in one year only. But then the hon. member says the Government is doing absolutely nothing to reduce production costs or to get rid of surpluses. I ask hon. members to be a little more responsible.

Another argument of theirs is that we must adapt ourselves to changed circumstances and find new markets. The hon. member for East London (City) stated that we were doing absolutely nothing to find new markets overseas. He said the Department had only two agricultural attachés, one in London and one in America and he asked what was being done in the case of the Common Market. The Government has appointed a special representative to study the position in regard to the Common Market and to keep us au fait. The various control boards send people overseas annually and some of them do so twice a year to sell their products. Time does not permit me to give figures to illustrate the success they have achieved. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether it is really their intention to serve agriculture with this motion which they have introduced? Do they wish to assist in solving the problem with which agriculture is faced? We have many problems. Recently many parts of the country experienced the worst drought since 1933. In respect of many products there have been surpluses for which new markets had to be found. Is it the intention of hon. members opposite to assist with better planning for the future as far as the farmers are concerned? Are they sincere when they lay these charges without proving them, these charges that nothing is being done, or are they simply trying to make political capital out of this situation and thus derive a little benefit at the polling booth? I maintain that if you analyse their attack the United Party have only selected those products in respect of which there is dissatisfaction amongst the farmers because there are surpluses and the overseas prices are low. They are trying to get the sympathy of those few farmers, but I can assure them that some of those farmers have come to me, that they have put their problems to me and asked for certain things and I told them that we could not do this or that for various reasons and I told them that if they were so dissatisfied they should simply vote for the United Party if they thought the United Party could do better and they replied: No, Mr. the Minister, surely you cannot throw us to the wolves like that. I do not believe, therefore, that the hon. members will derive any political advantage from it. We are endeavouring to ascertain by way of research what the problems are in all spheres, the economic sphere. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) said that the farmers were farming as efficiently as they could. But we have come across farmers who have cooperated with the Department and who thought that they were very efficient but after their position had been analysed they themselves said that they realized how much more efficient they could be. But these things take time and the farmers require to be educated as well. Everyone did not have the opportunity of receiving proper training. This sort of propaganda does nevertheless make an impression on certain people and the kind of articles which sometimes appear in the agricultural journals, articles which are written with the greatest measure of irresponsibility also make an impression at times. That is why it is our task to educate the farmers, together with planning on the part of the Department, but then hon. members must not say that the Minister should not warn the farmers to be more efficient and to live within their income. In spite of their problems and the arguments advanced by the hon. member, the farmers of South Africa are not yet prepared to accept the United Party in the place of the National Party Government.

At 3.55 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 41 (3) and the debate was adjourned until Friday, 22nd February.

SELECT COMMITTEE

Mr. SPEAKER announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on the Plant Breeders’ Rights Bill, viz.; Messrs. M. J. H. Bekker. Bootha. Faurie, Knobel, W. C. Malan, Thompson, Tucker, Mrs. Weiss and Mr. Wentzel.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Orders of the Day.

DIVORCE LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion -for Divorce Laws Amendment Bill, to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by Mr. Froneman. adjourned on 1 February, resumed.]

When the House adjourned on Friday I was saying that I could not agree with the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson), nor entirely with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). I fully realize that there are certain evils in the system of separation from bed and board but I am not in favour of its abolition. The hon. member for Pinelands pretends that there are no evils in this system. The system of separation from bed and board was always intended just as a temporary way out of the difficulty in the hope that the parties would become reconciled again. In fact that was the whole idea of the institution of the system of separation from bed and board, to see whether the marriage cannot be saved by a reconciliation. It was a sound basis and I think we all want that. That is why I cannot agree with the hon. member for Heilbron because if we abolish separation from bed and board it means that we shall also be abolishing that principle of reconciliation, and in my opinion we cannot allow that. It is true as the hon. member for Heilbron has said that the number of cases where people become reconciled again is minimal, but even if it is only one case out of 100 it still means that one marriage can be saved.

But there is another reason too why I should not like to meddle with this legal remedy which is already deeply rooted in our legal system. One does not like to interfere with such an old system unless one is able to put something new and better in its place. The old Roman-Dutch Law laid particular emphasis on the question of reconciliation. Let me mention a case in support of my argument. In one of his publications Van Bynkershoek mentions a case where the Hoge Raad in Holland refused to grant a separation from bed and board in spite of the fact that the parties were willing to be divorced and in spite of the fact that there were legal grounds for it, because the Court stated that the conditions that were stipulated made it unlikely or ruled out the possibility that the two parties would become reconciled. It is interesting to see what the conditions were that were stipulated. The wife was prepared to pay maintenance to the husband provided he always lived abroad and did not return to Holland. The Hoge Raad in Holland held that this could not be agreed to because it would rule out or render unlikely the possibility of reconciliation. The idea of the reconciliation period was to save the marriage and that is still the position to-day under our law. Here I could quote the judgment of Mr. Justice Hoexter in the case of Belfort v, Belfort in 1961 in the Appellate Division—

Mr. Speaker, this legal remedy of separation from bed and board laid the emphasis on reconciliation and you may ask me where the mistake crept in because with the passing of the years something did go wrong. The trouble is that the parties began to regard separation from bed and board as a means of punishment, they started to use it as a means of punishment. The husband would say to the wife, “I shall see to it that you do not remarry for the rest of your life,” or the wife would say to the husband, “I shall see to it that you do not re-marry.” It started to become a means of punishment and that is where the argument advanced by the hon. member for Heilbron is correct. When this legal remedy became a means of punishment it introduced all these evils to which he referred in his introductory speech. The reason was that in the past, particularly under Roman Dutch Law, it was difficult to obtain a divorce while it was fairly easy to obtain a separation from bed and board, particularly where the two parties agreed to separate. It was more difficult than it is to-day to obtain a divorce. In support of this idea that it became a means of punishment and that the courts expressed themselves against it, I just want to refer to the case of Wentzel v. Wentzel, 1915 A.D., in which Mr. Justice Solomon used these words—

As far back as 1915 Mr. Justice Solomon said that this legal remedy of separation from bed and board could serve as a means of punishment, and that is why he expressed himself most strongly against it in the Appellate Division. But there is another point too and that is this: Why should the one party who is possibly just one degree more guilty than the other party be punished? If the one party is 60 per cent guilty and the other party is 40 per cent guilty, then the one who is 40 per cent guilty can get a separation from bed and board and prevent the other party from ever re-marrying because according to our law it is not necessary for a person to go to court and prove that he is entirely innocent and that the other party is entirely to blame. That is not the case here; here it is simply a question of a difference in the degree of guilt. I also agree with Professor Hahlo where he says this in his book—

But in a judgment in 1948 in the Free State Court, Mr. Justice Toon van den Heever went even further. I do not think that this is accepted as one of our legal principles, but he went so far in 1948 in the case of Van Broemhsen v. Van Broemhsen as to say that where the two parties are equally guilty, separation from bed and board should also be granted. Here we have the situation where one party is perhaps just slightly more guilty than the other party and the later can then refuse to give him or her a divorce. The question arises how we can rectify our law so that this legal remedy can once again become what it ought to be, namely a means of reconciliation; What we can do to improve it so that it once again becomes a means of reconciliation instead of a means of punishment because the idea of punishment is not in consonance with our practice, nor is it in consonance with Roman Dutch Law? The idea of allowing a period of reconciliation is something which exists not only in our legal system; we also find it in the English legal system under which a few years have to elapse before an action for divorce can be instituted. In Natal a period of 18 months has to elapse before an action for divorce can be instituted and in Southern Rhodesia the parties cannot divorce until three years have elapsed from the date of their marriage. Mr. Speaker, here I want to submit the following idea for the consideration of the House; this idea does not emanate from me; it is an idea which other people have already put forward in the past. A few years ago in different circles the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) expressed the same idea that I want to submit to the House in all modesty. I have also discussed it with certain colleagues at the Cape Bar—I could mention their names—and they feel strongly that this may be the solution to a very difficult problem. The idea to which I refer is that we should retain the grounds for separation from bed and board; that we should also retain the legal remedy of separation from bed and board, but after a certain period, which I do not want to discuss now—let us fix it arbitrarily at a period of three years— anyone of the parties should be able to go to court and say to the court that there is no possibility of their becoming reconciled. The court would then listen to the evidence; the other party may come along and say that there is a possibility of reconciliation; the court would then weigh up the evidence of the two parties and if it finds that there is no possibilities of reconciliation, it would then grant a divorce.

At whose request?

At the request of anyone of the two spouses.

Even at the request of the guilty party?

Yes, even the guilty person. It is for that very reason that I referred a moment ago to the degree of guilt. One spouse, as I have already indicated, may be 60 per cent guilty and the other 40 per cent guilty but because the one spouse is only 20 per cent more guilty, he or she is punished. Either of the two parties could then go to court and say that there is no possibility of a reconciliation. In those circumstances we would re-introduce the possibility of a reconciliation which is necessary to keep the marriage intact and the legal remedy of separation from bed and board would again come into its own. I mention this just for the consideration of hon. members but I propose to move that this matter be referred to a Select Committee so that it can be thoroughly investigated. I hope that in these circumstances the United Party will support me. I recall that ten years ago when I made my maiden speech in this House I dealt with marital affairs, and when we came back from the Select Committee I was one of the three persons who voted on the side of the United Party for certain clauses. to-day, ten years later, the United Party can return the compliment and give me their support. I may say that in that debate in 1953 I was followed by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman); she was also making her maiden speech and she said that I had made a particularly fine speech. With that I fully agree. The hon. member for Houghton has also indicated that she will support me as far as the appointment of a Select Committee is concerned. I am only afraid, however, that the United Party will refuse to support me in view of the fact that the hon. member for Houghton supports me. I move—

I second.

I would like to deal at the outset with the amendment that has just been moved and seconded. I appreciate the sentiments of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) in expressing what he considers to be a duty on the part of this side of the House to reciprocate and to support his motion in the light of his previous support of a motion moved by this side of the House, but I regret that duty will have to be fulfilled on some other occasion. We on this side of the House are against the Bill before the House. We are against it because we consider that legislation of this kind which proposes to introduce far-reaching changes in our marriage laws, should not be put through the House in the way in which it is sought to put through this Bill. If far-reaching changes are to be made to our marriage laws we consider that the Government should take the full responsibility for it and if it is proposed to introduce a Bill, not do so until the whole matter has been thoroughly and properly investigated. We consider that a Select Committee is not the proper body to carry out such investigation. If any body is to be appointed it should be a properly constituted commission.

I do not wish to go into this subject at length; I merely wish to state the views of this side of the House on the amendment which has been moved but quite in passing may I say that my personal views on the proposition of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North), namely that the laws should be changed so as to make it possible to obtain a divorce after a separation of a certain length of time, my personal views are that I oppose that strongly. In passing I would like to mention to the House that in the February edition of the S.A. Law Journal there will appear an article by Professor Hahlo, to whom reference has already been made on two or three occasions, particularly by the hon. member for Heilbron. In this article he examines various suggestions that have been made with a view to reforming the marriage laws. In particular he examines at some length this particular suggestion that a divorce should be obtainable after a separation of a certain period of time, and he comes to this conclusion—

and then he goes on to say this—

I wish to deal with the merits of this Bill, and I will point out that the Bill proposes to do two things; it proposes firstly to abolish judicial separation and secondly to make any existing judicial order or notarial deed of separation and any future notarial deed of separation, virtually convertible into a divorce. Judicial separation has been part of our law for hundreds of years. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson), it formed part of the canon law and of the laws of the countries from which we derived our legal system, for nearly

1. 000 years. Furthermore, judicial separation is still part of the law of England; it is still part of the law of Holland and it is still part of the law of most Continental countries. I suggest that under those circumstances this House should be extremely cautious before deciding to abolish judicial separation and more so since in England, after careful and thorough investigation by the Morton Commission, an investigation which I believe lasted for a period of four years, it has been decided to retain this institution. The hon. member for Heilbron seeks to persuade this House that judicial separation ought to be abolished. I would have expected, and I think this House was entitled to expect, that the hon. member would not have introduced the Bill unless he was able to show a substantial demand to abolish judicial separation from law societies, marriage guidance councils, churches, women’s organizations and other bodies which have to do with matrimonial problems. Not only has he shown no demand whatever from such organizations but, what is more, he said during the course of his introductory speech that he had not heard from these organizations. In fact he introduces this Bill despite the fact that he has not troubled to ascertain the views of bodies which are far better able to speak authoritatively on this subject than is the hon. member—and I say this with respect to him— despite his 25 years’ experience as an attorney. The fact that there has been no demand to abolish judicial separation from bodies which are intimately concerned with the effect of this institution, should, quite apart from any other considerations, I suggest, cause this House to reject this Bill. But in fact I believe that there is one body whose members have a lot to do with matrimonial problems which has, I believe. unanimously expressed its opposition to this Bill, and that is the Association of Law Societies …

Where do you get that from?

With respect, Sir, it is irrelevant where I get this from. What is relevant is whether or not the Association of Law Societies opposes or supports this Bill, and I say that I believe that the Association opposes this Bill. The Association of Law Societies is made up of the Law Societies of all the provinces of the Republic. Quite apart from the absence of a demand for the abolition of judicial separation from bodies intimately concerned with marital problems, I believe there are other reasons for rejecting this Bill and maintaining judicial separation as part of our law. I believe these fall into three categories—religious, social and what I might call practical reasons—and I propose to deal briefly with each of these, first of all the religious reasons. There are obviously many people in South Africa who are against divorce on religious grounds. For such people the only relief from a dangerous or intolerable matrimonial situation is judicial separation. One such group of people is the Roman Catholic group, but I want to stress that the Roman Catholics are by no means the only people in South Africa who are against divorce on religious grounds; there are many others, so for that reason, because the statement which I propose to read will apply to others as well as Roman Catholics, I propose to read to this House the views of the Roman Catholic Church on this Bill as expressed by the Catholic Archbishop of Cape Town, Archbishop Owen McCann in a statement published in last week’s issue of the Catholic weekly newspaper The Southern Cross. But before I do so I would like to say that I intend to deal later with what the hon. member for Heilbron described as his threefold answer to people such as Roman Catholics, and I shall show that the so-called answer is in fact no answer at all. This is what the Archbishop says—

I say again that there are many people in South Africa whose consciences do not permit them to divorce, and for them the only relief from an intolerable matrimonial position is judicial separation. It may be convenient at this stage to deal with the three answers given by the hon. member for Heilbron to such persons. He said first of all—

Sir, the first thing I have to say about this is that judicial separation has been recognized as part of the law of many countries which are termed Western civilization, and it has become part of the law as a result of Christian influences and I am not aware that it has previously been suggested that to recognize this institution shows in any way a lack of conviction on the part of those who have conscientious objections to divorce. However, there is another answer to this so-called first answer and that is, I think, that marriage is an institution which affects two people and if one party makes life intolerable for the other, it is unjust towards the innocent spouse to force that spouse to continue living together with the guilty spouse and not to give the innocent spouse the opportunity to live, apart whilst at the same time recognizing that a divorce must be obtained.

This is a queer argument.

The hon. member for Heilbron regards this as a queer argument. Perhaps I can return the compliment and say that I regard his answers as being very queer answers to the persons who share the views that I hold. The second of the hon. member’s so-called reasons is this. He says—

Sir, that is so provided the guilty party is prepared to enter into an agreement. If he is not, then of course that cannot be done. In any event it is of little help because after a period of a year the guilty party will be able under the Bill to petition the Court to set aside any such agreement. The third reason is—

That argument, to my way of thinking, goes against the hon. member for Heilbron because if in fact the abuses and the difficulty which he seeks to overcome by doing away with judicial separation can nevertheless be obtained by merely living apart, then he does not solve any problems at all by abolishing this institution. In any event, I suggest that persons should be given the protection of the law if they find themselves in an intolerable matrimonial situation. It is not sufficient simply to say to them: You can live apart. There should be some protection at law whereby they can get a judicial separation order which will give legal recognition to their living apart. I consider that it would be morally wrong for this House to abolish judicial separation and so bring about a situation whereby the only relief from an impossible or tragic matrimonial situation would be a course which is contrary to the conscience of the person concerned. This, I think, applies even more so if in fact the number of judicial separations is comparatively small in comparison with divorces. We do not know what the figures are; no statistics have been placed before this House.

I pass on to the second ground, the social reasons. The argument advanced to this House by the hon. member for Heilbron was largely based on the assumption that plaintiffs who obtain judicial separation could have obtained divorce orders equally well but refrained from doing so in order to keep their husbands tied to them for other motives. Firstly, that is quite wrong because there are many instances where the plaintiff has no grounds at all for a divorce but does have grounds for a judicial separation. Secondly, the hon. member for Heilbron looked at the matter purely from the point of view of the aggrieved husband. But there is, of course, the wife’s side of the matter and I belive it is this: Although the member for Heilbron was quite right in saying, as he did, that a wife is able to get maintenance under our laws even though she obtained a decree of divorce—that does not need a judicial separation order. So from that point of view she is not prejudiced by taking an order of divorce instead of a judicial separation order. But in practice she could well be prejudiced and in fact she is very frequently prejudiced because a husband who re-marries as a result of having been divorced, creates other financial obligations and in doing so he lessens his ability to maintain his previous wife; he is either no longer able to maintain her at all or is not able to maintain her to the extent which she requires. The same applies to the children. They also are very often prejudiced by a second marriage and the creation of these further financial obligations. So, although in theory …

They must be supported in any case.

But surely the hon. member must appreciate that in deciding how much a husband should be ordered to pay, the Court will and must take into account the financial obligations which the husband has towards his second wife and towards his second family.

The other social reason, I believe, is that by passing this Bill we will in effect be making divorce easier. I will explain why I say that in a moment. Before I do so I would like to make a few observations which are probably not necessary and that is that all right-thinking people in South Africa are in agreement as to the importance of the family unit to the nation and the need to do everything possible to safeguard the stability and security of marriage. Any step, therefore, which makes it easier to get divorced should not be taken. In fact, Sir, there are many people who think that under our law it is already too easy to get divorced. The Bill before the House, I suggest, will undoubtedly make divorce easier; firstly, because it makes an existing judicial order or a notarial deed of separation and any future notarial deed of separation convertible into a divorce.

Not necessarily.

I agree with that but it does make it convertible into a divorce. But the matter goes further than that. Divorce under our law is granted on two main grounds, malicious desertion and adultery. There are two others but those are not relevant to this discussion. Judicial separation, on the other hand, is granted on the two grounds of divorce but also on a further ground which, for the purposes of this discussion, I think we can call cruelty although, strictly speaking, that is not an entirely correct term. If judicial separation is abolished no relief for a wife whose husband has not deserted her nor committed adultry but by conduct of one sort or another has made life intolerable, will be obtainable. The inevitable result will be that very soon cruelty will be made a ground of divorce. I suggest that that is inevitable. In this regard I should like to quote again from this article by Professor Hahlo. I do so mainly, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member for Heilbron in introducing this Bill relied on certain passages from a text book by Hahlo which, prima facie appear to justify the Bill. I quote firstly from page 43 of this article. It says—

Then again at page 38 he says this—

In passing I would point out that by the amendment which has been moved to-day a new ground of divorce is in fact proposed.

Are you opposed to cruelty being a ground of divorce?

I am, yes. I am opposed to it amongst other reasons because of the difficulty of drawing the line. I suggest that the experience in America, where mental and physical cruelty are grounds of divorce, shows how it can be abused, firstly; and secondly how difficult it is to draw the line between acts which justify a divorce and acts which really do not.

Is malicious desertion not also abused?

The fact that the marriage laws may be abused—and they are— certainly does not justify doing away with the institution of judicial separation nor does it justify introducing the new ground for divorce which is proposed or introducing cruelty as a ground of divorce. These interjections by the hon. the Minister of Lands emphasize the folly of trying to deal with the marriage laws piecemeal in the way this Bill proposes to do. If there are to be changes in our marriage laws it is essential, I suggest, that the whole matter should be properly and carer fully investigated by a properly constituted committee. I have already expressed myself against a Select Committee. In my view a Select Committee is not a proper body to carry out such an investigation.

I might add one point only in support of that argument. The English commission which investigated this whole question took four years for its investigation. Undoubtedly it is a matter which is going to require the hearing of a great deal of evidence from various bodies who have to do with matrimonial problems and from various persons. It is bound to take a long time if the body concerned does its job properly. For that reason alone I suggest that a Select Committee will be an entirely unsuitable body to carry out the investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I now come to the third category and that is what I term practical reasons. One of the main arguments advanced by the hon. member for Heilbron for the abolition of judicial separation is that, in his view, it is abused by spiteful and vindictive wives or by wives who use judicial separation to extort more maintenance than they are entitled to. Let me make it quite clear, Sir, that I appreciate that judicial separation is in some cases abused in this way. I do not deny it. But I repeat that there are many laws which are subject to abuse and if all laws which are so subject have to be abolished, we would arrive at an extraordinary situation. I suggest that if the law is in fact subject to abuse, it ought to be possible to so amend it as to obviate, at any rate the bulk of the abuses. You will never be able to obviate all the abuses. But I suggest that it ought to be possible to obviate a large number of the abuses by amendment without doing away with the institution altogether In any event, Sir, without proper statistics it is impossible to see the problem of abuse in its proper perspective and no statistics have been put before this House.

I explained why I could not give statistics.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member’s difficulty and the reason why he was not able to put statistics before the House. But that is a further reason why if the matter is to be amended by legislation at all, it should be properly investigated by a properly constituted commission. One needs to know in this regard, one needs to have the answer in this regard to the question of how many judicial separation orders there have been granted by our courts each year; how many divorces there are so as to make a comparison and arrive at a percentage, and in how many cases of judicial separation there is abuse. Clearly, Sir, there must be many cases of judicial separation in which no abuse at all exists; many wives who act perfectly properly, and do not extort more maintenance from their husbands than they are entitled to and so on. One needs to know the extent of these abuses so as to see the matter in its proper perspective. I am inclined to think, Mr. Speaker, although I may be quite wrong, that statistics would show two things. They would show firstly that the number of judicial separations granted is extremely small in comparison with the number of divorces and secondly that it is only in a small percentage of cases of judicial separation that the situation is abused. However, Sir, I consider that the strongest argument against the proposition that judicial separation ought to be abolished, because it is being abused, is that, even if judicial separation is abolished, it will still be possible for unscrupulous wives to hold their husbands to ransom in the same way that they do under the judicial separation procedure. Here again, Sir, I shall quote from the article by Professor Hahlo to which I previously referred. At page 37 the professor says this—

That is the proposal under this Bill. He goes on to say—

I would draw attention to what follows, Mr. Speaker, because I believe the professor is quite right—

He deals with this again at page 44 where he says this—

[Time limit.]

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) could not have been listening to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel). He suggested referring the matter to a Select Committee, which means that statistics can be called for and also other details in connection with the legislation. He thinks that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) has now suggested a new ground for divorce. That is definitely not so. Evidently he is opposing the suggestion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) only because he is a Government supporter. I should now like to move a motion which I hope he will second, namely—

I second.