I move—

The object of this short Bill is to give effect to a request submitted to me by the Committee of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, to change the financial year-end of members of the Exchange from 30 June to 28 February.

This request arises from the change in the tax assessment year under the P.A.Y.E. system. I am informed that, if members of the Exchange adhered to their present accounting date of 30 June, they may be involved in difficulties and clashes in carrying out their various duties under the P.A.Y.E. system (in relation to both employees and their own provincial payments) which would all be geared to the assessment year ending in February. Furthermore, many brokers have in their total earnings a component of private income derived from activities other than stock broking, and here again complications might arise if the financial year ending 30 June were retained.

Although some brokers might, with the approval of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue, be able to continue on the present basis, the Committee of the Stock Exchange considers it very desirable to have a uniform financial year. In order to ensure that members have that required amount of minimum capital, the Committee insists that brokers submit audited accounts as of the same date; that is essential in order that outstanding bargains between brokers can be checked.

If the change proposed in this Bill were not made, those brokers who changed their financial year to 28 February might find it necessary to have their accounts audited no less than three times per year—at 28 February for income-tax purposes as well as for their own internal purposes, at 30 June to comply with Section 22 of the Stock Exchange Control Act, and at 31 December to comply with Rule 190 (d) (i) of the Stock Exchange. If this Bill is accepted, it would be possible to dispense with one of these audits, since it is the intention of the Stock Exchange Committee to alter Rule 190 (d) (i) to ensure that in future audit certificates be submitted by broking firms as at 28 February and 31 August of each year.

I think the request of the Stock Exchange Committee is reasonable and I commend the Bill to the House.

We naturally support this Bill. It is consequential upon the introduction of the new end of the financial year, namely, the end of February, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out. Section 22 of the Act provides for the control of books, accounts and records of stockbrokers. The Committee of the Stock Exchange actually goes further than the Act provides. They control their members even more stringently than in the manner laid down in the Act. We naturally support this Bill that the hon. the Minister has introduced.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I am sorry the hon. the Prime Minister and the Chief Government Whip are not present here this morning. In the absence of the hon. the Prime Minister I will convey my message to the hon. the Minister of Finance. This request has been made to me from various parts of the country. A short while ago I spoke with a few hundred farmers in the district of Lydenburg in the Transvaal and they asked me to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to arrange an exchange. The request is that the hon. the Prime Minister should give other portfolios to the Ministers of Agricultural Technical Services and Agricultural Economics and Marketing and that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development should be given the agricultural portfolios. I make this request on behalf of the Farmers’ Union of South Africa. It has appeared from the discussions on farming matters during this Session that hon. members opposite can no longer contain themselves. They have to tell the same Job’s story that they say we on this side tell.

The strongest accusation that I have against the hon. the Minister and his Government is the following. The hon. the Minister is now going to tell me about the millions of rand that are spent on assisting the farmers. I want to say here that those millions of rand are nothing more than piecework. All this money is money that is being loaned to people who can no longer help themselves. Money is made available by the Farmers’ Assistance Board in the form of loans to buy stock because people can no longer make a living in any other way; we have Land Bank loans because farmers can no longer obtain credit at some other place. To my mind the most important indication of the critical condition in which the farmers find themselves in this country was the announcement in the Budget debate by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). Imagine, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cradock standing up and making an announcement in connection with the financing of farmers! It was not done by the Minister but by the hon. member for Cradock. And what did he say? He said that their caucus had decided to make this announcement. He also said: “I also want to say that our three Ministers, although they have not adopted the report in its entirety.… Where on earth have we heard a member of the caucus making an announcement and not a Minister? What does this amount to? It amounts to this, that the Farmers’ Assistance Board, the Land Bank, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services have to finance the farmers. Then the hon. member for Cradock says that the Farmers’ Assistance Board must be converted into agricultural committees. At the end of his speech he said that farmers would no longer have to be sold up when they could no longer pay the interest they owed and that farmers would no longer be sold out by the Land Bank either. What else is all this but patchwork? The fact remains that this Government does nothing for the farmers unless the farmers are on their knees. We on this side of the House do not want that state of affairs. It is time that this Government woke up. I have said and I say it again that the farmers are tired of hearing that they should apply better farming methods.

They are tired of hearing that they should lower their production costs. What is the truth if one considers the matter in that connection? What happened last year in regard to the price of wheat and maize? The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing said then that because the production of wheat had fallen the price should be lowered.

I said nothing of the kind.

But of course the hon. the Minister said so. This is not the first thing that the hon. the Minister has denied; neither will it be the last. Let us assume that he did not say this. This was the reason that was given: That the production of wheat had fallen and for that reason the price of wheat also fell. But there has always been a shortage of wheat in this country. There was a surplus production in the case of maize and the price of maize was also lowered. On the one hand there was a shortage of wheat and the price was lowered and on the other hand there was a surplus of maize and the price was also lowered. This is an interesting fact: Last year there was a surplus of maize and the price of maize was lowered. This year more maize was produced than last year and this year the price is higher. [Interjections.] It is estimated that more maize is going to be produced this year than was produced last year. Mr. Chairman, that hon. member is trying vainly to put me off. Let us accept the fact that there will be a million or two million bags less than last year. I make that concession to the hon. member; he wants to make a bone of contention of it. What then was the justification for lowering the price of maize last year if the price is being raised again this year? The fact is that the price of maize should not have been lowered last year and the price of wheat should not have been lowered either. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is that the farmers with their knowledge of methods of expansion, with their methods of operation, with their methods of fertilizing, because of the increased use of hybrid seeds and the better combating of pests and plagues are doing everything that they possibly can do on their farms. And what has the hon. the Minister and the Government done? Let us see what they have done to bring production costs down.

During the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services it was particularly interesting to me to note that the hon. the Minister said that we were able to produce all the bags and woolsacks that we needed in this country. I put a direct question to him and he said that if we were no longer able to import them we would be able to supply our own needs. But he did not tell us what the price would be. What are the facts to-day? The fact is that the farmers are subsidizing the two factories that have been erected in this country. Because the imported bags are cheaper, a balance has been effected between the two and the farmers have subsidized these factories to the tune of millions of rand in this way, The remarks of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services merely indicate to me that he does not have the slightest idea of what the farmers are spending. I will not deal with this matter any further because another hon. member will discuss it. The fact is that the prices of farming requisites have continued to rise. I want to quote from Agrecon [Translation]—

Then they give the percentages; 3.5, 4.3 and 2.9. They also talk about the tremendous increase in agricultural exports which at the moment amount to R349,000,000 of our total exports amounting to R852,000,000. But they also give a graph and this graph is the most interesting of all because it indicates what the expenditure was in comparison with what the farmers received. In other words, it showed the farmers’ profit. When one looks at this graph one is surprised that there are any farmers at all who are still able to make a living. As I have already said, it is the man whose farm has been paid off, the man who has no debts who can still hold out because he is able to borrow money on his land. He is encumbering his unencumbered land. Mr. Chairman, the farmers are subsidizing the artificial fertilizer factories that we have in this country. Last year the hon. the Minister emphasized the fact that the farmers had sold tea and butter and that this had been a great success. [Time limit.]

It is very clear to me that the hon. member who has just sat down forgot in the first place to ask for the half-hour and secondly, she thought that she was still living in the days of 1948. Hers was a speech that would have been appropriate then. But to-day one has to be realistic and see what is going on around one in South Africa. I was completely amazed to hear the hon. member trying to get away with the statement that she made and then on top of that she still had the effrontery to repeat the distasteful remark that we expect the two Ministers of Agriculture to be exchanged for other Ministers. It is a strange thing, to my mind, that last week in the Western Transvaal I came across exactly the opposite to what the hon. member for Drakensberg came across in the Eastern Transvaal. For example, at a meeting at Zeerust at which 600 people were present, by far the majority of whom were farmers, there was one dissentient I imagine that the hon. member knows the person, Mr. Henry du Toit. He asked a number of questions and, as usual, was sent home with a flea in his ear. What happened there is what happened in the Transvaal and throughout the whole country. If we have an election or a by-election to-morrow, our majorities will simply be increased. If what the hon. member has said is true and the farmers have deteriorated to such an extent that things are going so badly with the farming industry, why did they not make use of the opportunity in the Free State and elsewhere to contest by-elections? Why did they not appoint candidates? It is nonsensical for the hon. member to contend that this Government is not giving its full attention to the farmers and to agriculture in South Africa. And if the hon. member reads this book that is at her disposal, the Annual Report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, she will see that year after year the agricultural industry in South Africa goes from strength to strength. But she comes along here now and contends that the Government is doing nothing for agriculture! After all, the Government is not a farmer. The Government is there to determine policy. I want to put one question to the hon. member. I want to contend that on the Highveld of the Transvaal land in the maize area is being leased at from R16 to R34 per morgen.

Where do you get those figures?

I am prepared to prove these figures on any platform in South Africa. I put this question to the hon. member. Is this not proof positive that money is still available in this particular industry? How otherwise could a person pay such an amount for the lease of land? This is positive proof that money is still available. And there is money in the wool industry. There is also money in other industries in the country. We cannot get away from the facts. There is a great deal wrong with our farming because there is a great deal wrong with our farmers. Just as there is a great deal wrong in other industries in the country we also find this in the farming sphere. Everyone does not fit into the pattern. Everyone in the mining industry is not a miner and everyone in the agricultural industry is not a farmer. As long as the world exists this will always be the case because man is not a perfect being either in agriculture or anything else. There are a few things which I want to bring to the attention of the Opposition. They had the opportunities before the present Government came into power to create those perfect farming conditions in South Africa. What did that hon. member and the loquacious hon. member next to her do here in South Africa? I was a farmer at that time, as I still am to-day, and the fact is that we in South Africa had a shortage of maize. We had so much wool that we had to store it in Port Elizabeth. There was not a single product that our country could export. Let the hon. member deny this! We had to import maize. And what did we import? Absolute rubbish! We had a shortage ’ of dairy products and we had to import cheese and butter from New Zealand, And what did their party and their leaders do during that period of shortages? I was Chairman of the Milk3 Board in the Transvaal at the time and we sent a deputation to the then leader of that party, the Minister of Agriculture. What happened? After giving a promise at 5 o’clock in the afternoon that those prices would not be altered, at 12 o’clock that same evening the prices were published in the Government Gazette and it was announced that prices would be cut by 2d. This was the sort of treatment that farmers received in the past. I say to-day that the defeat of the United Party in the election of 1948 and its defeats in subsequent elections was due entirely to their agricultural policy.

Just as in your case.

Very well, make use of the opportunities that you receive in the by-elections. Why do hon. members avoid elections? In every by-election that takes place in a farming area this Government increases its majority. The hon. member represents an urban constituency because he cannot find a rural constituency to represent. He certainly does not have the confidence of any rural constituency. I want to urge him to discuss urban matters and to leave agriculture alone because he knows nothing about it.

You must be careful; another by-election is coming. The Prime Minister saved your bacon, not the farmers.

Now they are fighting a sham fight. When the hon. member speaks about Lydenburg it is only a sham fight; there is nothing in it.

There are many matters that one would like to discuss under this Vote, matters affecting agriculture and which are of the most vital importance. But instead of making a positive contribution to the debate the Opposition make it very difficult for one to raise matters under this Vote. I also want to talk about bags and fertilizer but I certainly will not follow the theme of the hon. member for Drakensberg. As far as bags are concerned we have an industry in South Africa to-day that is partly financed or subsidized by the State. The reason is that it is a young industry and we want to reach the position where we will not be placed in an embarrassing position as was the case in the past when the United Party was in power. It is because of this fact that we are subsidizing this industry. We want to assist this industry to the benefit of South Africa. But my plea to the hon. the Minister is that subsidization by the State makes it very difficult indeed for the farmer. The bags that he has to buy in South Africa are too expensive. We ask the hon. the Minister and his Department to give attention to the matter to see whether something cannot be done in this connection. This is a matter that affects South Africa as a whole, not only the farmer, not only the man who needs the bags. This matter rests heavily on the shoulders of farmers who have to use millions of bags. We ask that further attention be given to the matter and that a cheaper bag be made available to the farmer. I think that when I put the matter in this way I am putting it more positively than the hon. member on the other side put it. In the past we had to buy our bags abroad at such exorbitant prices that eventually we had to make use of paper bags. In asking for further research in this sphere and for more assistance to be given to the farmers, I think that I am putting the matter more positively than was done by the hon. member.

Be careful or you will again lose the nomination.

But I am here and I do represent a rural constituency.. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? The hon. member told us about a meeting at Zeerust. Why did he not also tell us that after he had spoken the Nationalists there asked the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) never to bring him there again because he was harmful to the Nationalist Party? And why did he not tell us that when the motion was put it could not be put in the usual way to find out how many were in favour of it and how many were against it. All the Chairman said was: “All in favour of the motion shall rise”, and of course, everyone stood up and walked out and he immediately adjourned the meeting. Nobody knew what was going on.

The hon. member merits a word of praise because he has broken a lance for the farmers in connection with bags. He merely enlarged upon what I had said but he is the last one to talk about elections. He knows that nomination day is coming and I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister will save his skin this time. The hon. member told us that he was Chairman of the Milk Board in 1947 or 1948. But I want to rectify another mistake that the hon. member made. He spoke about an amount of from R16 to R34 per morgen for land leased by farmers for maize production. Why then does the hon. member not lease all his land? Or has he already done so? That is an impossible position. How can an adult stand up and say that port of thing? If it were true all the maize farmers would simply move to the towns and live there in luxury—if they could receive R30 per morgen for their land! I can well understand the hon. member for Marico saying that the hon. member should not return to Zeerust because he did the Nationalist Party too much harm.

The hon. member for Marico did not say that.

The hon. member also said that he was Chairman of; the Milk Board in the Transvaal when the United Party was in power. If he was Chairman of the Milk Board in the Transvaal I want, to refer him to the graph that I have here from which it appears that the farmers made a profit in regard to all products, a very large profit. I will give it to the hon. member later so that he can study it and while we are talking about milk, what is the position in regard to milk now? I was saying when my time expired that last year the hon. the Minister spoke about the campaign that they had set in motion to popularize dairy products, cheese and butter amongst the public, and he said that it was such a success that much more of these products was used than before and that the surpluses had been disposed of. That is true. But it is also true that farmers have also disappeared. At the moment there is a shortage of milk in South Africa, particularly in Natal. We find that Mr. Maree, the Chairman of the Milk Board, says that the milk shortage is “country-wide and is not confined to Natal”. In Natal the position is that the tinned milk factories have to import powdered milk, that cheese has to be imported and that there is a shortage of butter there. And we are now only in the middle of May. We know that the lean months in Natal are July, August and September. I think that this also holds good for the Transvaal and for the Cape as well. Therefore under the control of the hon. the Minister it is a fact that the surpluses have disappeared but the farmers have disappeared with them.

You said just the opposite last year.

I want to urge the hon. member to consider what he is going to do at the next nomination. In Durban alone 127 milk producers and suppliers went out of business people who were no longer able to keep dairy cows and who left the business completely. I do not know what has become of them. But it struck me that in the course of a certain debate when the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) was speaking about the mines that are closing down, hon. members opposite said that there were more people in the cities than there ever were previously. This to my mind indicates where the farmers have gone. The farmers have left the platteland and the report on the depopulation of the rural areas outs it very clearly. This report was submitted three years ago. I do not know what they would say to-day because in the past year the number of farmers has decreased by 28,000 and these 127 that I have just mentioned are not anywhere near the number. The fact is simply that the rural areas are becoming blacker and blacker. And the hon. member who told us just now how well things are going with the farmers is one of the members who during the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services told us about a large black spot of 100 miles wide in his constituency that had arisen during the past two or three years. I can tell him that this is the case throughout South Africa. What is the truth in connection with this matter? The truth is that this Government does not care what becomes of the farmer. The truth is that this Government wants the farmers to leave the platteland. As I said, this Government only helps when it can no longer avoid doing so. What good is it to give a man credit, along one channel, when he is on his knees? It merely means a change of creditor. It simply means that where previously he owed money to various persons, he now owes it to one person, to the State, but he still owes every penny of that money and he has to pay back every penny of that money. This to my mind is a terrible thing because our farmers are the most independent people in the country. We have always said that the farmers are the backbone of the country, the stable section of the country. In agriculture the tendency is for a man to develop a strong character because of the difficulties that he has to overcome— droughts, insects, plague and so forth. All the conditions that he has to contend with result in his character being strengthened. Because of this we have a stable type of person on the platteland. But now we are losing all those stable people. They are being taken away and they are going to the cities and they are going unprepared. In a previous debate I asked what the hon. the Minister wanted them to do. Mention has been made of uneconomic farms. What does he want the uneconomic farmer to do? I pointed out at the time that the hon. the Prime Minister also sold his farm. Farming probably also became uneconomic for him. I added that on the salary that he was receiving at the moment he could at least put one Afrikaner on that farm and pay him a salary.

What petty reasoning!

What is to become of these people? Must they carry parcels on the station? These are people who know nothing but the farming industry. Must they sweep the streets? Must they go and work in the gardens of the Union Buildings in Pretoria? What must become of these people?

You make a farce of everything.

No, I am very much in earnest. This is a terrible thing to my mind and all because this Government waits until something has already happened. For how many years now have we not told them to wake up? We see what is being done in other countries and then we see that in South Africa a man is only given a loan when he is on his knees. We want to stop these people being brought to their knees. An important thing that will assist here will be for more market research to be done than is being done at the moment. I have here a paper called Austral News, which is issued by the Australian Trade Commissioner. On the first page we find: “Now Australia exports skill”. “Dairy know-how used in Japan”. It goes on to say—

Japan is one of the most progressive countries in the world and Australia is exporting to that country. Australia is exporting cheddar cheese which the factory processes and packs as cheese fingers.

At what price?

At a price that keeps the Australian farmer on the land; at a price that prevents the Australian farmer finding himself in the predicament in which we find ourselves. On the same page we find “Australian Citrus shipped to Manila”. The report states—

This is a new market that they have obtained. I read further: “Australian fish canneries bid for export sales,” and they go on to mention everything that is being done in this regard.

You do not know what is going on in your own country.

If the hon. the Minister knew more of what was going on we would not be in this plight. They give details here and they say—

They go on to say what was exported to the various places and then they say what is still to be done. In the same paper we find: “West Indies buys Australian cattle”—

What about all the goods that we export? Why do you not read about that?

Where are the new markets?

This newspaper consists of four pages and on each page details are given of new markets and increased exports. They say here that the export of apples and pears has never been as large as during the past season and they mention the countries to which these products have been exported. Amongst others they go to countries to which we do not export. They export soft drinks made from fruit at various places in Australia. Mention is made in this newspaper of no fewer than five or seven different agricultural products of Australia which receive special attention as far as exports are concerned. But what do we find when we talk to the Minister? We are told that the Nationalist Party wins the election. But not one of the hon. members opposite has told us how they delimitated the constituencies. Not one of the hon. members opposite has told us the part that delimitation plays. I say again that at the next delimitation constituencies are going to be cut up even further so that there will be even fewer farmers in the constituencies because this Government is aware of the position. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) asked why the farmers did not make use of the opportunity to air their dissatisfaction when the two Ministers of Agriculture recently travelled around the platteland. But they did indicate their dissatisfaction.

But I did not say anything of the kind!

The hon. Minister knows—and I see the hon. member opposite looking at me—that at certain places people are only allowed into the halls by invitation.

That is completely untrue. It was a public meeting. Ask Uncle Herman.

The hon. member says that I should ask Uncle Herman. I take it that he means the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins). There we again have the same old story: Ask my brother: he talks just as big as I do! The hon. member knows that during the debate last year he made a very unwise remark. I was supposed to have asked: “Must the farmers carry parcels or what must they do; they are unprepared for any other work.” Then he made that remark. When he held his report meeting he did not give any notice of it but held that meeting quietly in a private home.

That is untrue.

On a point of order, must the hon. member not accept that?

I come back to what I said at the start—that year after year we have told hon. members opposite what is happening in the farming industry. We have asked them year after year to see what is happening in other countries. Here I want to mention West Germany which is one of the most progressive countries in the world.

What about the farmers there who are leaving the platteland?

If we have to depend upon the blindness with which the hon. the Minister is at present afflicted, then I feel sorry for the poor farmers. They must see what is being done in other countries, like Australia, where market research is being done. They must look at Western Germany to see what is being done there for the farmers. They must look at America and see what is being done for the farmer there. Is it too difficult for them to learn their lesson and to do something for the farmers of South Africa before they are all brought to their knees?

While I was listening to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) I asked myself whether the Opposition was in earnest in putting forward this criticism. I cannot object strongly enough to the nonsensical statements made by that side of the House in regard to the position of the farmers. The hon. member for Drakensberg spoke for 40 minutes, and in that time she said absolutely nothing. If they were really in earnest in saying that things were going badly with the farmers in South Africa we would at least have had some constructive criticism from that side of the House. But to come here and to tell the Minister that farmers from Lydenburg asked the hon. member to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to do certain things simply shows that no notice is taken of her at places where she is not known. This certainly did not come from her own constituency. I want to say that the criticism of the Opposition in regard to farming is absolute nonsense and certainly does not redound to the credit of the farmers. When we say that things are going badly with the farmers, I want to emphasize that a prosperous farming community is the greatest asset that any country can have. That is why one becomes concerned when it is continually suggested that things are going badly with the farmers. All that we expect of the Opposition is that if they are really in earnest when they say that things are going badly with the farmers, they must suggest steps that can be taken to place the farmers on a sound economic basis.

Kick out the Government!

I shall say what I think it is necessary to say. If steps are suggested to place the farmers on a sound basis, that will be constructive. We want the farmer to retain his honorary title of being the king of his farm and the backbone of the country.

That is just what I said.

If the day does come in South Africa when the farmer no longer has that honorary title, it will be to the great discredit of the farmers. But to keep the farmers going and to place them on a sound economic basis no remedies are required, The basis of any remedy for the farmers must be rehabilitation. That is why, when we discuss the economic position of the farmer to-day, it must be seen against this background. We must realize that farming in South Africa is no longer a way of life, but has become a competitive business. Our attitude must be that any farming undertaking must rest on a sound business basis and, to do this, it is necessary to consider certain economic laws. By this I mean that in the determination of the price of any product proper regard must be had firstly to supply and demand and, secondly, the producer must be allowed production costs with a reasonable profit margin. These requirements must be applied together and must form the nucleus of any policy that is applied. I say this because I want to make a contribution, a suggestion to place the farmer on a sound economic basis. I want to say immediately that the involved and unrealistic methods by means of which the production costs of some products, particularly maize and wheat, are estimated, do not comply with these requirements. On the contrary, in many respects they have the opposite effect. Our estimates of production costs are too artificial to my mind and in many respects serve as an incentive in the wrong direction. I want to take maize as an example, because it fits in with my farming pattern, and what I am going to say here also applies to any other branch of agriculture.

The basis on which we must work is this: As far as maize is concerned, we have become an export country and accordingly we must bear the export price in mind. As far as our internal market is concerned, the consumption has remained fairly constant and has not risen along with production. We must also take this factor into account. In the third place, the payability of maize is not determined by the price per bag, but by the profit per bag obtained by the producer. That is why maize farming must be regulated in such a way that the farmer produces at a price that is as close as possible to the export price. The internal price must simply be regulated to eliminate fluctuations and to supplement supplies when the crop falls short of expectations. The internal price must be kept within limits so as to encourage local consumption, particularly in regard to stock feeds. I make bold to say that it is possible to comply with these requirements without affecting the reasonable profit margin of the farmer. To this end it is necessary that we have the closest co-operation between the Government and the producer. This is a task that they must tackle together. The Government’s contribution in this regard has been to set up the Marketing Act with the various control boards to ensure the orderly marketing of the various products and to avoid undesirable and detrimental price fluctuations. It has never been the function Of the control boards to assure the producer of a guaranteed price which cannot be justified on economic grounds. There is an obligation on the producer under the marketing system of the country, because he has certain basic rights that he wants to protect like a costly jewel, and because he wants to retain these rights, it is the duty of the producer in the first place to ensure that his investment is economic and realistic. It is unrealistic when the farmer pays fantastic prices for land or for hiring land. Secondly, it is necessary for the farmer to make use of his methods of production as advantageously as possible. Here I may mention the care of his implements, the judicious use of fertilizers and the preparation and conservation of the soil. It is also necessary for the farmer to make the fullest use of his labour and here I include, not only manual labour, but also mechanized labour, of which he must make the fullest use. This also includes the servicing of those machines. His investment in machines must also be judicious, because I have always considered it to be injudicious to purchase machinery costing thousands of rand which can only be used for a month or six weeks of the year. Those are the responsibilities of the farmer, and the State cannot interfere in this regard.

On the other hand the Government also has its duty towards the producer. The Government can ensure that means of production are made available as cheaply as possible, and this can be done in various ways. In many instances this may mean that the farmer has to be protected against himself. What the Government can do is to ensure that machines and implements are standardized to some extent. I know that this is a difficult task, but I cannot see why there should be dozens of types of plough-shares, because all ploughs can be adapted for the use of a certain type of share. If these shares can be manufactured in bulk, it must result in a considerable price reduction. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, it would appear from Austral News that Australia has stolen a march on South Africa and is exploiting markets which might have been exploited by South Africa. May I at this stage just express the hope that the hon. the Minister will take due notice of what is taking place in Australia and the extent to which they are exploiting the markets, which was read out here this morning. As a matter of interest, I see that powdered butter is now being developed in Australia. That is a new patent. I sincerely hope that, in the interests of the dairy industry it might be used in this country if it is a success, I want to suggest to the Minister that it is high time that his side of the House got rid of the idea that the United Party wants to damage or get rid of the Marketing Act. [Interjections.] This side does not want to get rid of the Marketing Act. It is this side of the House which put the Marketing Act on the Statute Book,

Who made that accusation?

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), and the hon. the Minister himself suggested that last year. He accused the United Party of wanting to get rid of the Marketing Act: But that fallacy must be exploded for all time. The methods we have adopted in this House have been to criticize the administration of the Marketing Act and its boards, and there is every justification for that and we shall continue to do so in order to attain a measure of stability. I want to say that those improvements can be effected if the Minister would apply his mind to the matter. These problems have to be solved in the interests of the economy of agriculture in South Africa. At this stage we have to try to remove the severe fluctuations that exist. I want to say to the Minister, by way of example, that he has misconstrued many of the addresses that have been made to him from this side of the House. I ask him to investigate the price spread between producer and consumer prices, a gap which is definitely too wide. I raised this matter last year, and what did the Minister reply to me? He said I wanted the boards to take over distribution. Sir, the Minister knows full well that the boards are the greatest wholesale distributors we have in the country to-day. They are the suppliers to the retailers, but the price spread between the wholesale price and the price the consumer has to pay runs up to 100 per cent. I mentioned the various commodities on a previous occasion. Products which realize 14c are sold at from 28c to 36c. It costs 100 per cent to distribute milk. All I ask is that an investigation be instituted to see whether it is necessary for them to get 100 per cent. If it is, tell us so; if it is not, we want something to be done about it.

I want to come to the question of levies which is agitating the mind of every farmer in South Africa who supplies products through a control board. After a period of some 30 years during which those boards have existed, we still have uncertainty as to what is required. We must be holding somewhere in the neighbourhood of R100.000.000 in control board reserve funds, buildings, etc. What further contribution is the Minister expecting from the present generation to assist posterity? You have the Wool Control Board, which controls about R24,000,000. When will that be enough? That is all I ask. Is it necessary for us to continue to accumulate these huge funds? For what purpose? With the funds they have got they have done an admirable job in giving a measure of stability. You have the Meat Control Board, which is sitting with some R11,000,000. Is that not enough? What is significant there is that when it had something like R6,000,000 the Minister allowed the levy to be raised to 140c. Why? Because in the last year they Have increased their reserves up to R11,000,000. Is that necessary? For what purposes are these huge sums being stored by the control boards? I also want to touch on mealies. There is possibly a. 30.000;000 bag surplus arid its export will require substantial funds, but as far as meat is concerned, I maintain that that R11,000000 does not give us the stability We require. Unfortunately we have the boards’ passing the buck. When we had a measure of Control under the permit system. the buck was passed on to the agents who are now expected to control the markets. The board could not do it itself with its agents, but now it is handed over to private enterprise, co-operative agents or private agents, and they are now called upon to control the market in the interest of stability. Surely that is an unsound practice. With that state of affairs existing, what right have we to accumulate R11,000,000 without being able to give that stability? I mentioned it last year, and I have to mention it again, that there is still a price spread between the floor price and the highest price received almost in successive days of 10c a lb. The Minister cannot deny it. I produced the documents for him last year when I showed that the price spread over two successive days was 15c up to 25c, for the same quality meat, and the same state of affairs exists to-day. Surely the time has arrived to combat that type of thing.

I want to say how grateful we are to the Mealie Control Board for the report it has submitted to us. There are three members of the Control Board here, including its chairman. Its technical adviser has made some very interesting observations, in which he has asked for an investigation into the greater use of maize to raise the standard and the quality of the meat produced in this country. Over and above that, there is the very pertinent suggestion that maize might be used to maintain stock at a level where it will not lose that 200 lb. to 400 lb. weight over the hard winter months. But in order to do that we must bring meat and maize into harmony. We will certainly produce a very much better quality beef and mutton if we did that. But I think that must come from the Minister, because a close investigation of that matter will make it possible for South Africa to produce a much higher quality beef which can compete reasonably overseas. I think the time has come for South Africa to send its beef, mutton and pork to market on the hoof, rather than have the enormous surpluses of mealies we are exporting overseas. It is important to the country that that should be done, and I sincerely hope the Minister will not tell me that South Africa will not absorb a higher quality meat. Our high quality meat represents only 35 per cent of the production, i.e. prime and first grade, and 65 per cent of the meat produced represents second-class, third-class and inferior meat. I think much could be done in this direction and I sincerely hope that the members of the Mealie Control Board sitting in this House will indicate to us the extent to which they will investigate the matter. [Time limit.]

When I was interrupted just now I was trying to show that in fixing the price of a product the factor of supply and demand must be considered and that the producer must be allowed his production costs plus a reasonable profit margin. I tried to show that the State and the farmer had certain obligations in this connection. I want to take this further and say that the State can do a great deal in connection with standardization. This is an important task and I do feel that we can succeed to a large extent by means of standardization if we give the co-operatives the right to retain the agencies for certain agricultural implements. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that agricultural co-operatives are given the agencies for certain agricultural implements but once they have popularized those implements amongst the farmers, the agencies are usually taken away from them and given to some other undertaking. If we make use of the co-operatives to popularize certain agricultural implements, we will be making great progress as far as standardization is concerned. I refuse to believe that there is a great difference between the various kinds of implements in the various areas. We can very easily popularize an implement by making use of the co-operatives in this regard.

As far as the conserving and fertilizing of soil is concerned the Government should give the farmer all the assistance possible. I have never been satisfied that it pays to push up the yield per morgen of any product by the application of excessive fertilizer because of the climatic risks that we run in this country. I am not convinced that the great expense incurred in increasing production is worth the trouble. The Government must ensure that the transport of produce, perishable products and particularly export produce is given effect to as efficiently and as quickly as possible. The export of maize particularly must be streamlined. Surpluses should be disposed of as soon as possible. In the report of the Maize Board one can see the amount of expense involved in storing and carrying over maize. By streamlining the transport of these products a great deal of money will be saved. Once we have done all this, when the State has fulfilled its obligations on the one hand and when the farmer has fulfilled his obligations on the other hand, we will be on the way towards placing farming in South Africa on an economic footing once again. That is why it is not only the responsibility of the farmer but also the responsibility of the State. When these two cooperate I believe that farming in South Africa will again be placed on an economic basis.

I want to come back to this question of the shortage of fresh milk in Natal and the prices paid for it, because this is not only important to the economy of the agricultural producer, but it has a very serious effect on the consuming public and on the economy of South Africa. I want to refer to the figures supplied by the Minister’s own Department in reply to questions I asked earlier this year, to show him that this question has been coming forward year after year when this side of the House, and I in particular, have warned the Minister that the prices he has been gazetting for dairy produce have been unrealistic in relation to the cost of production over the years, and I accused this Minister with being the one responsible for the shortage of milk and dairy products in South Africa. I am quoting from headlines in the Natal Mercury and the Daily News of only the day before yesterday, which say: “Milk shortage hits the province of Natal: Dairy farmers claim low prices force them out of business.” I warned the Minister last year that whole dairy herds were being disposed of. There were dispersal sales and many of our good dairy cattle were going to the abattoirs and were not being purchased by other people to produce milk, but were being slaughtered, and beef stock was taking their place. The Medical Officer of Health says that for the first time in four years he had, on four days last week, to allow 1,000 gallons of fresh milk a day to come in from unregistered premises. He said that at the moment the milk coming in was from registered premises, but he did not know how long he could hold that position. [Interjections.] The Minister should give a reasonable price in relation to the cost of production and he should subsidize the price of stock-feed, but he allows the price of fodder to go up while fishmeal is being exported, so that the price goes up generally for everything the farmer needs, but he gets a lower price. We had a reduction of 2 cents a gallon for our condensed milk and cheese milk during the last 12 months, and that price was fixed by the Minister. Sir, the secretary of the Natal Fresh Milk Producers’ Association says that there are 127 fewer suppliers to Durban this year. Most of those 127 suppliers who were in the business, in most cases for many years, have stopped producing milk. Would they do that if they were making a profit? Sir, we have complained over and over again that this Minister in particular and the Government as a whole do not help the farmers and the dairy producers in relation to their cost of production. We had a notice last week stating that because of the fact that the overseas price has gone up, the price of molasses to those of us who use it as a dairy feed in Natal will go up as from Saturday next week. The price of meat has gone sky high: the price of fishmeal has gone up; the price of everything that we use in the production of milk is going sky high. The hon. the Minister cannot say that he has not been warned. Let us deal with the position over the last few years, according to figures provided by the Minister’s own Department in reply to questions which I have asked in this House. In 1958 we imported 2,500,000 lb. of cheese, 2.750.000 lb. of condensed milk and 1,500,000 lb. of milk powder. We imported milk powder from various countries, cheese from New Zealand and condensed milk from the Netherlands. We also imported from various other countries. We imported in 1959, and each year I have raised this matter with the Minister. In 1960 we again imported but not quite to the same extent. Then in 1961 our price dropped, and I warned the Minister that with this drop of 2d. per lb. on butter-fat, the production would be tremendously affected. [Interjection.] We have not had a drought every year from 1958 to this year. In 1962 we imported over 1,000,000 lb. of New Zealand cheese alone and another 1,000.000 from other countries, We imported 1,500,000 lb. of dried milk as well as other dairy products. Whereas we were exporting huge quantities and earning exchange —last year I went in some detail into the amounts that we were exporting during the ’fifties when we were exporting huge quantities of cheese and dried milk—to-day we find that we have to import these commodities. We as producers are called upon to launch a campaign to advertise cheese and inviting people to eat more cheese; I opened a Cheese Week only last July in Durban, where we gave away free cheese and gave away wine so as to encourage people to eat more cheese, and within one week what were we doing in Maritzburg? We could not buy South African cheese. We had to buy New Zealand cheese. What did we do in this very city only a couple of weeks ago? We had a cheese and wine night at Goodwood where we offered free cheese and free wine. But what is the position to-day? Go and try to buy South African cheese in Long Street. You will find that you can only get New Zealand cheese. I have complained year in and year out about this. The producer in this country does everything in his power to encourage the consumption of our cheese, and then we find that our people have to consume cheese from other countries. Sir, I ask the Minister what he is doing to rectify the position; is he going to give back to the producer of cheese this 2d. per gallon on milk? Is he going to be realistic? If he tries to use the excuse that there has been a drought, is this Government going to help the farmer who has been hit by drought? The farmer does not ask for anything free; all he asks for is reasonable help under difficult conditions. But even those farmers who have not been hit by the drought are in a precarious position. In my own area I have not suffered a drought but I know that I have not made one bean out of milk in the last five years. I am not producing fresh milk to-day; I am producing industrial milk—butterfat—and I do not make one penny out of it. I am not making one bean out of my cows to-day. I think the average farmer in the milk areas in Natal to-day is not making one bean out of either fresh milk or industrial milk. [Time limit.]

A great deal has been said and written about farming and agricultural problems in South Africa. Commissions have also been appointed from time to time to investigate, amongst other things, the depopulation of the platteland, but I do think that one of the most important causes of these agricultural and farming problems, including the depopulation of the platteland, is the high land prices that we have to pay in South Africa. The prices of all agricultural products are practically uneconomic to-day as a result of the unduly high land prices. An increase in the prices of agricultural products is of no assistance because as soon as the prices of agricultural products are increased, the price of land rises and one is back again exactly where one started, particularly in regard to the young man who wants to start farming. The price of an average grain farm to-day— I do not say that it is the average price—the price of an average grain farm, not even a good grain farm, is in the neighbourhood of R100 per morgen or more. On the other hand for the purposes of the determination of wheat and other prices, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing fixes the price of a morgen of land at R74. They think that that is an economic price. Here immediately we see the difference between what the Department and the Minister consider to be an economic price and the ruling market price. The same holds good for land in the cattle areas, those areas that are situated in the dry parts of South Africa. The old farmers always argued that sheep and land prices corresponded in the animal husbandry areas—that one would pay for a morgen of land what one pays for a sheep. If the market price of the sheep was R2 then in those days they did not pay more than R2 for a morgen of land. They argued that this was the only way to make sure that they could farm economically and I think that that is the only way. What is the position to-day? A man can buy land to-day but even in the drought-stricken areas he has to pay R16 per morgen and if he is not willing to pay that price he simply cannot buy land. The average price for a sheep in those parts is R7. One sees immediately how the high price of land pushes up the price of sheep. I do not think that there is anything wrong with the present price of sheep. On the contrary, R7 is a very high price. The farmers will tell you that it does not pay and it does not pay for one reason only and that is that the farmers have to pay too much for land. But this does not only apply to agricultural land; it also applies to building sites. The position to-day in this sprawling country of ours is that we have to pay R2,000 or more for a piece of land the size of a crypt. In earlier times people used to use a piece of land, land for which we pay R2,000 to-day, as a crypt. Mr. Chairman, I think that land speculation is wrong. There should be no such thing as land speculation. That land belongs to the country and to all the people. In South Africa we have the position to-day that it is only the State through the Department of Lands that can assist young men who want to take up farming. It is only the State that makes land available cheaply to young men who want to start farming. Otherwise it is absolutely impossible for a young man to start farming unless he has inherited a farm. If he has to buy that farm it is uneconomic because the rate of interest that he has to pay is so high that no matter what the price may be that he receives for his products, he simply cannot make ends meet. It is said—and this is the generally accepted thing in South Africa—that people who make a lot of money buy land in order to avoid paying income-tax, and I think that this is one of the reasons why land prices in South Africa are so high. There was a time when the profit on land sales was taxable for income-tax purposes. I think this was responsible for the fact that there was no land speculation in those days and I want to make an earnest appeal this morning to the hon. the Minister and his Department to find a practical solution to this question of rising land prices in South Africa. I am convinced that farming in South Africa will only be placed on a sound basis once again—there are other methods as well but this is the most important one—if we do something to combat these ever-increasing land prices which are getting completely out of hand.

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to what I regard as a very serious matter and that is the high cost which our producers have to bear in connection with the packing of their products. I refer, of course, to all the jute products in this country. I recently had occasion to address the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services on the question of fibre production. The Minister then gave us a very full reply and one which, if we could accept it and if he himself was satisfied with it, might offer a little hope for the future, but I quite frankly feel that what he has told us has been contradicted by information supplied by the Department of Economic Affairs. In a statement recently made by the secretary and which appears in the Report of the Public Accounts Select Committee, he indicated that they had got so far that they anticipated producing 2,500 tons of fibre next year whereas our requirements, as you know, Sir, amount to some 50,000. What we have to realize and appreciate is that in spite of all the efforts which have been made over many years now, we have only got to the stage where we can meet about 4 per cent of the country’s needs. I think 4 per cent of our requirements is actually being manufactured. We also have this position which is clearly set out in this report to which I have referred, that the locally produced fibre cannot be used unless it is mixed with jute. On the basis of a 50-50 mixture therefore we still have to import jute, so one can quite realize that the bulk of our requirements in jute products is still being imported. In fact all your grain bags and all your wool sacks which are being manufactured here to-day, are naturally manufactured of imported jute. In this regard I just want to say that we might well bear in mind that Pakistan is certainly not going to be prepared indefinitely to continue selling raw jute to us in an unmanufactured state. They have already commenced to impose extra duties on it. If you look at the matter from their point of view, why should they not look after their own people and get the services completed in their own country? All this is adding to the costs of the goods which we manufacture from imported jute. While I am on that aspect, I think the time has come when this position will have to be gone into very carefully indeed. I would not be surprised if within a year or two we found that we have to scrap all ideas of fibre production locally because other methods of packing which are already being introduced indicate that more suitable fibres are being found. We will find ourselves in the position that not only will we have these two mills which we have kept going here, but we might find that we have a tremendous development in fibre production which will be of no value to the country. I feel therefore that it is essential that this position be properly investigated before we allow it to get out of hand.

Sir, unfortunately time is short and one has to hurry over these things, but I think we have arrived at the stage where the actual results which have been made available reveal a shocking position with regard to the losses the farmers have had to carry over the last four or five years. You have been on a basis where you import raw jute and give mills the opportunity to manufacture wool packs and grain bags for you. Incidentally, we still have jute control. In the case of grain bags we find it impossible to get the exact prices of the imported goods. Jute control is useless at this stage. It is of no value at all except possibly to guide the position as far as the locally manufactured article is concerned, but it is absolutely useless and I think the time has come when it should be abolished. It simply means extra cost. If you abolish jute control, then all wool packs and grain bags could be imported freely into this country, with a resultant big saving to producers. Let me just tell you. Sir, that during the years 1958 to 1962 we imported 87,000,000 grain bags as against 68,000,000 manufactured locally. On the locally manufactured bags, taken at a fairly moderate price—I am sure that my prices are very low —the farmer has already lost well over R10,000,0000. These are carefully prepared figures, and I can assure you, Sir, that if you include all the other grain bags which are used for various purposes, the figure might well be as high as R15,000,000 to R20,000,000 over this period. I base this on the actual figures of grain bags supplied to me by the Department of Economic Affairs. Well, how do we expect the farming community to progress and prosper when they are handicapped in this way? For what reason is this being done? Is it a type of insurance? If it is a type of insurance then I can only say that the farmers have to pay an enormous premium. Earlier in this debate the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbie) who has at last become interested in this matter, pleaded for the cost of grain bags to be reduced, but I would like him to investigate the position so that he can substantiate his plea. He spoke about the subsidy that the farmers received. Well, I do not know who subsidizes whom because here you have the farmers subsidizing the mills at a tremendous cost. Sir, I have just touched on the position with regard to grain bags. Let us see what the position is with regard to wool packs. Here the position, of course, is clear; here I have been able to get all the information. I find that during 1959-60 the loss to the wool farmer was R373,000; in 1960-1 R241,000, in 1961-2 R357,000, and if you add the estimated loss for 1962-3 it means that over this period of four years the farmer has lost R1,271,000.

Sir, can the Minister tell us exactly why this should be so?

You are making a mistake. The price of the bag is taken into account in fixing the farmer’s price.

I am talking about wool packs now, and I would like the hon. member to know that I am not talking light-heartedly over this; the figures which I have given here can be substantiated. The wool packs which are manufactured in South Africa cost you 70 cents more than the packs which you import. For what reason do you carry on? Can the Minister give us any reason? This is a large amount of money which is taken out of our economy. In the first place it is coming out of the pockets of the farmers. You could reduce the farmers’ cost of production, which would mean that the consumer would get the benefit of lower prices. I think we have reached a shocking state of affairs, and I do think it is time that the Minister instituted a proper inquiry and made it clear to the House what is at the back of all this. Is there any reason why we should keep mills going for that specific job? What are we afraid of? If we are carrying on because of fear, there is no justification for it. I do not know whether this falls under this Minister because we have three Ministers to deal with in this matter, but the point is that this Minister is responsible for marketing, and if he is responsible for marketing, then he has to put clothing around the product he markets. As I have said earlier, this particular aspect of the development with regard to jute goods in this country is not only hitting the farmers but every industry in the country using jute goods. The progress that is being made in fibre production in this country is so limited that I do think the time has arrived when we should abandon this effort and try other avenues to produce the fibres which are required to meet the needs of this country. We can certainly never go on in this way and call upon the farmers of this country to pay these enormous sums of money every year to keep the mills going.

I again appeal to the Minister to look at this matter in its true light. There is no justification for carrying on in the way in which we are carrying on to-day. We are simply marking up the costs of these products from year to year with no immediate prospect of solving the problem in regard to the production of fibres.

I want to discuss two aspects of farming. The first deals with the distribution difficulties of the farmer and the second with his production problems. I want to start with the farmers’ distribution problems and I want to link this up with the question of maize in South Africa. At the moment a higher maize price is being paid than was paid last year. The price is R2.87 per bag. The farmers, of course, are satisfied with the determination of that price and I want to state that here as a fact. But if anybody contends that this increase in the maize price this year has solved the problems of the maize farmers, then he does not know what he is talking about. In my opinion, this only affords temporary relief, and it is a matter to which we will have to give our serious attention in the future. We must not make jokes about it as the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) did this morning. This is a serious matter and I think we must concentrate our attention on the distribution of maize in South Africa. In considering this matter, we realize that it is essential to see whether we cannot find a bigger internal market for our maize. If we can do so, then I think we will be able to overcome our problems to a large extent. We have our Maize Board and I want this morning to put forward a few points of criticism of the Maize Board. I am not criticizing the hon. the Minister because I do not think that this criticism can be laid at his door. But I think I must say a few words in connection with the Maize Board. When we start with the distribution problems, the first problem is that the cost of distribution is so high. The middleman must be eliminated. We find to-day that the Maize Board itself is the big middleman because maize can only be bought through its agents. I do not think that in saying that I am saying too much. I want to ask that far more serious attention be given to the idea of a floor price for maize.

Oh!

The hon. member can say, “Oh!” I know that any member of the Maize Board will immediately say, “Oh!” because apparently the Maize Board is a complete stranger to that idea. Mention is only made of it in passing in their report but they have never investigated the matter thoroughly. I expected them to investigate the matter very thoroughly. Let me put the position in this way: Let us imagine that we have a floor price of R2.80 per bag for maize and that the farmer sells his maize at R2.80 direct to another producer who needs the maize to feed his sheep. We will then eliminate distribution costs to a large extent and I do not see why this cannot be done. The storage costs and the handling costs can then be eliminated to a large extent. Let me mention an example. A maize farmer at Heilbron receives R2.80 for his product but if that producer at Heilbron wants to sell the maize to his neighbour, his neighbour has to pay R3.60 for it. He has to buy it from the agent of the Maize Board. There is a difference of almost 80c in the price that he has to pay although the maize could simply have been transported from the one farm to the other without incurring those additional expenses. In other words, the maize farmer to-day is paying for the storage and handling of the entire maize crop throughout the country.

The Government pays for the storage.

Yes, the Government pays for it; I am quite aware of that fact but the consumer also pays for it. The consumer is only subsidized to the extent of 35c, not the full amount of the difference. [Interjection.] The hon. member who is a member of the Maize Board can argue with me about it in a moment. Let me first put my point. I want to put it because it is necessary that this should be said sooner or later. As maize farmers we cannot afford to keep the Maize Board’s agents going artificially. I feel that an investigation should be made into this matter and that other methods should also be investigated. Is the Maize Board not too attached to the present system? That is all I want to ask. If it says that it is not and that it has tried other methods, then I shall be satisfied. They must tell us whether they have tried other methods. I simply say that there are other possible methods that have not yet been tried and that is what I want to advocate here this morning. In the past the Government subsidized yellow maize by 50c. This amount will now be smaller, of course. But let us take the 35c subsidy that the Government pays on white maize. That subsidy can be used to cover export losses if we have a floor price of say R2.80. The subsidies which are now being paid for internal consumption can be used to cover the loss on the sale of maize abroad and then we will be able to buy our maize at the floor price far more cheaply in this country. This will stimulate the consumption of maize abroad. At the moment it is not being stimulated. The price of maize to the local consumers is too high, Mr. Chairman. In spite of that 35c subsidy it is still too high in this country. The price that the producer receives and the price that the consumer pays must, as far as the internal market is concerned, be brought closer to one another. Ways and means should be found to bring this about. I want to ask that the Maize Board should investigate this matter. I gain the impression from their report that they have not investigated this aspect very thoroughly.

We also had meat control. It was in a chaotic state and we then introduced the system of floor prices. I do not say that we have solved the meat problem, far from it. There are still many problems in connection with the distribution of meat but we can at least say that the position has been improved since that system was introduced. I want to ask in all earnestness that this matter be investigated. The Maize Board should investigate the question of the distribution of maize on the local market. We should find a bigger internal market for our maize. Let me take the kaffir-corn farmers as an example. They have a floor price. They produce nearly 3,500,000 bags per annum. The local consumption is only about 2,000,000 bags; that is to say, almost half of the kaffir-corn crop is marketed locally at a floor price. Since a floor price was introduced for kaffir-corn we have not had any complaints from the kaffir-corn farmers; they are very satisfied with the position as it is to-day. I want to know whether that system has also been investigated as far as maize is concerned.

I want to say a few words in connection with the costs of production. I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister. Is there proper co-ordination between his Department and the Department of Commerce and Industries? I ask this because I have had to deal with a few matters when I was convinced that one Department did not always know what the other was doing. An hon. member raised the question of the jute industry a moment ago. I take it that there is the necessary co-ordination in this regard between the two Departments. But then there is the question of artificial fertilizer that I have repeatedly mentioned in this House. Last year we could not import nitrogen into South Africa because the Department of Commerce and Industries said that we were manufacturing all the nitrogent that we needed here and the price of nitrogen was fixed accordingly. This year the manufacturers of nitrogen are producing that nitrogen in a form which enables them to export all of it and they have told the Department of Commerce and Industries to start importing once again. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister’s Department is aware of the fact that nitrogen can again be imported into South Africa. And since nitrogen is going to be imported into this country again, is the hon. the Minister aware of the fact that nitrogen prices abroad have fallen considerably and that nitrogen can now be sold more cheaply in South Africa? [Time limit.]

As we live in times of agricultural surpluses I believe that insufficient attention is being given to the encouragement of the production of those crops for which there is still a steady market within South Africa. That is to say, Sir, that I believe more attention should be given to the solving of the problem of surpluses by making it more attractive and more remunerative for farmers to grow those crops which we still have to import. The one I should like to deal with in particular is cotton. We import a considerable quantity of raw cotton into this country because we are not growing enough, yet there are large areas of the country which are suitable for the production of cotton provided a realistic price is paid to the grower. The figures for the last four years are these: In 1959 we imported 44,000 odd bales of 500 lb.; in 1960, 76,000; in 1961, 117,000; and in 1962 approximately 120,000. That is a great deal that we have to import from abroad. These imports come chiefly from the United States and Brazil. The interesting thing about this is that the quality of the imported cotton is below the quality of the cotton produced in South Africa. If this is a product which can be produced here—and there is no doubt that there are large areas of the country including my own constituency where this product can be grown successfully provided the price is right and steady—it seems quite wrong that all this exchange should be spent abroad when the stuff can be grown here. The point will no doubt be raised that the textile manufacturers require a great variety of ranges of cotton and that all those types cannot successfully be grown in this country. That is true, Sir, but we can grow a great many of the varieties which are presently being imported in large quantities. The production in South Africa for the equivalent period, as I have just mentioned, is as follows: In 1959, 34,000 bales; in 1960, 22,000 bales; in 1961, 22,000 bales and 1962, 28,000 bales approximately. After 1959 there was an actual drop in the production with an increase last year, an increase which is no doubt related to the restrictions on the growing of sugar because many sugar farmers switched temporarily to cotton to overcome those restrictions. Here you have a situation where a crop can profitably be indulged in by farmers provided the price is right. At the beginning of the picking season this year cotton farmers expected a drop of about 7 per cent in the price; a drop of ½c per lb. It can be grown successfully in South Africa but as the question of insecticide is important because to grow cotton successfully you have to use a great deal of insecticide which means that a man engaging in cotton production has not only the ordinary expenses connected with tractors, implements and labour which become higher year by year, but he has the expense of having to use a large quantity of insecticide. If, say, a year in advance of the picking of the crop a farmer could be sure that he would get a guaranteed minimum price, which I suggest should not be less than 8c, there would be a large-scale increase in production of raw cotton in South Africa and we would not have to import the hundreds and thousands of bales which the textile manufacturers require. The amount imported goes up year by year whereas the production in South Africa, apart from the year 1962, has remained almost static. It cannot be said that the slight increase such as I have suggested would have any material effect on the cost of cotton textile goods because the price to the farmer for the raw material forms a very small percentage of the total cost of production of a shirt, for instance. That is clearly understood, Sir, if one bears in mind that a shirt weighs less than 1 lb., whereas the increase that is suggested to the farmer is of the order of 1c per lb. of raw cotton. It is quite clear that a slight increase to the farmer will bring about benefits which will enable a large-scale expansion of the production of this crop as a farming crop, whereas that small benefit by way of increase in raw cotton has very little effect indeed on the cost of production from the manufacturers’ point of view of cotton goods. An increase such as I have suggested will mean an increase to the farmer of R5 to R10 per acre which, of course, is calculated on a crop of one or two bales per acre. That is most material; it makes it worth while from the farmer’s point of view. I stress that in the nature of things that increase which is worth while to the farmer is negligible as far as the cost of production of the manufacturer is concerned.

I believe that this is something which would bear investigation by the hon. the Minister’s Department. He may find himself, in this instance at least, in the happy position where he is able to satisfy the farming community by stabilizing their income from this source and where he will satisfy the hon. the Minister of Finance because a great deal will be saved in foreign exchange mainly with hard-currency countries, and he will not have deputations from the textile manufacturers waiting on his doorstep because that increase to the farmer will be minimal so far as the increase in the cost of production to the manufacturer is concerned.

To sum up, I believe there should be a guaranteed minimum price of something of the order of 8c, perhaps a little more, to the farmer. If that were to be done, and the price is guaranteed 12 months ahead, you would have the expansion of cotton production amongst the farming community which is desirable and the hon. the Minister would have available an alternative crop which could profitably be grown in many parts of the country as an alternative to some of the crops which are presently in over-supply.

I think I must reply to a few of the points raised by hon. members. I want to start with the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) who was the first speaker on the Opposition side. When that hon. member speaks one gains the impression that she is not really very interested in the economic position of the farmers or the advancement of their interests, because the hon. member simply makes wild statements. She does not look so wild to me but I have often wondered why she makes such wild statements. The hon. member made statements that were completely devoid of all truth. She alleged that I had said last year that the price of wheat had been reduced because less wheat had been produced than in the previous year.

I said that production costs were reduced.

No, that was not what the hon. member said. The hon. member does not know herself what she said but I do resent that fact. She actually said here that I alleged last year that the price of wheat was reduced because the production of wheat had dropped. I said that it was untrue and then the hon. member said that it was true. I think that under these circumstances one cannot take too much notice of the representations made by the hon. member for Drakensberg or of the statements that she makes. She quoted from a newspaper in regard to what happens in Australia as far as the promotion of the marketing of their products in other parts of the world is concerned. She then suggested that nothing was being done in South Africa to sell our products in the rest of the world. But the hon. member must remember that this is something that I have said on various occasions. On the one hand the hon. member is annoyed with the Government and the Department because agricultural prices are not fixed in such a way that all the farmers are able to stay on the land. In the same breath she resents the fact that prices are not such that our farmers are able to compete with other countries in the world. I have repeatedly said that if we want to build up a sound agricultural industry here and if we want to be in a position to compete with other countries in the world in regard to that part of our production that we have to export, then we must produce in such a way that we can compete. There are reasons why Australia is better able to compete than we are. The hon. member referred to the export of cheese and butter from Australia to other countries which are close to Australia. But the hon. member did not want to tell us at what price these products were being exported. We know that Australia can deliver butter to this country and to our neighbouring territories at prices lower than our local price. We know that Australian mutton can be delivered in South Africa at a price which is considerably lower than our internal mutton price. It is in this connection precisely that we have to educate our farmers and regulate our economic position in such a way that if we want to compete on the export market we can do so at a price that is competitive. It does not help to keep prices artificially high internally without having a market for one’s product. Or does the hon. member expect the Government to fix a guaranteed local price for every product that can be exported? Does she expect the Government to pay the difference in price by way of a subsidy if that price cannot be obtained abroad? If that is what hon. members opposite expect then they must say so openly. That is why we say that we must keep our internal prices on a reasonable basis in respect of products the prices of which are fixed. But if we want to develop foreign markets, then we must get our farmers to produce at a price which will enable them to compete.

Another wild statement made by the hon. member was that we should see what is happening to the farmers in other countries. She said that in this country the farmers were being driven from the platteland. She mentioned a figure but I do not know where she got it from. She said that the farmers were disappearing from the farms and she asked why the Minister did not give attention to what was happening to the farmers in other countries; why the Minister did not go to America to see what was being done there. But in the European countries and more specifically in America, the Government is following a specific policy. It is their policy to encourage people to leave the rural areas. That is the policy in Holland and also in most European countries. That is also the policy in Germany to which the hon. member referred. Their policy is specifically to have fewer people in the rural areas. If she looks at the official policy of the American Government she will see that in the next few years they are going to try to remove 100,000 farmers from their farms. And then the hon. member says that we should see what they are doing; that we should do what they are doing! In the same breath she accuses the Government of being responsible for the depopulation of the rural areas. I cannot understand what the hon. member wants. The hon. member says that the Government is doing nothing to reduce production costs. She says that all that the Government does is to wait until the farmers are in a position where they can no longer help themselves before it takes action; only then does the Government help the farmers. That is a stupid statement. How can we wait until the farmers can no longer help themselves before we help them? Where climatic conditions and other conditions have placed the farmers in difficult circumstances, the Government has always assisted them. I do not want to mention the figures again. The hon. member says that the particular assistance that is given to farmers under those conditions is in the form of loans and that the farmers have to repay those loans. Does the hon. member want the farmers to be given that money? If the United Party comes into power is it going to give that money to the farmers? [Interjections.] The hon. member says that I must not talk nonsense but the impression created by the hon. member is that she is criticizing the Government because it lends these people money. She asked what was the good of making loans to the farmers because they had to repay those loans. That is the impression that is given to the outside world. I know that the hon. member did not mean it in that way and that the United Party would not resort to such action, but the hon. member wants to give the outside world the impression that the assistance that this Government gives to the farmers means nothing and that if the United Party had been in power they would have assisted the farmers in another way. That is the impression that she wants to create. Let them tell me what this other method is. Would they have given that money to the farmers under the same circumstances? [Interjections.] Do you see, Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what we have to deal with. When I ask the hon. member what she means she shrugs her shoulders and, just like a woman, says “perhaps She says nothing is being done to keep production costs down. But that is not true; and the hon. member knows that it is not true.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not say that. The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, and I say that I gain the impression that she knows that it is not true.

Order! The hon. the Minister cannot put it in that way either.

Very well then, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. I say that the hon. member ought to know that it is not true. The hon. member quoted from Agrecon. On page 13 there is a full list of all the subsidies paid by the Government for various purposes. I take it that she not only read that portion which it suited her to read, but that she also read further and, if she did, she would have seen that the subsidy in respect of artificial fertilizer amounted to R2,693,000 in 1961-2. The railway rebate on artificial fertilizer alone was R3,631,000, and that is paid by the Government. The rebates in respect of the transport of stock alone amounted to R852,000 last year. Last year the rebates on stock feed were not so high, but during the previous year they amounted to R547.000. Last year the amount was R158,000. I do not want to mention all the other figures. And then the hon. member says that this Government is doing absolutely nothing!

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Will the hon. the Minister please give me all the figures in respect of assistance given to farmers by the Farmers’ Assistance Board, the Land Bank and other bodies in order to keep their heads above water?

All those figures appear in the report; the hon. member can look them up herself. I do not want to weary the House with those figures. The hon. member knows what the most important reason was for those loans. She knows what the special circumstances were in parts of the country which gave rise to this position. She knows it just as well as I do, but she tries to create the impression that the farmers who are assisted by the Government are not assisted because particular circumstances have placed them in that position, but because the Government has not ensured that the farmers receive good prices for their products. But in the same breath the hon. member attacks me and says that maize prices are so high that the stock farmer cannot afford to feed his stock on maize.

I did not say that. It was the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who said it.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) said it. Another accusation that was made was this: It was my fault that there was a shortage of cheese this year and that we had to import cheese. This shortage was due to the drop in price. We all know what our production of dairy products was last year. We all know that at the end of 1961 we had a tremendous surplus of butter which we could not sell. We all know that quotas were fixed on the markets on which we normally sell these products because there was a universal surplus. We know that the storage costs of that butter were very high indeed. We were also saddled with a surplus of cheese. We then started a special campaign to encourage the consumption of more cheese. The hon. member referred to this, and then she asked what was the good of starting a campaign to encourage the consumption of cheese when we had no cheese. But that is not so, Mr. Chairman. The consumption of cheese increased considerably. It increased by millions of pounds because of that campaign. The small amount of cheese that is now being imported is being imported to supply the public with the product which they have become accustomed to using. Of course, the hon. member would not understand that. I want to put this question to her: If we have a shortage of a product to which the public have become accustomed, must we not ensure that they continue to get that product? The hon. member says that the milk and cheese production dropped—she mentioned Natal particularly— because prices were lowered. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) associated himself with that remark. But the price for fresh milk in Natal has never been reduced.

Or increased.

They are so afraid of an increase that they are keeping it on a strict quota basis. No farmer can enter the market in Natal and produce fresh milk unless he pays R5,000 to be able to produce 100 gallons of milk. And that is being done voluntarily by the Natal farmers together with their distributors. If there is such a shortage of fresh milk in Natal, let us do away then with the quota system. I also want to put this question to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). He said that there was not sufficient milk in Natal. Will he rise now and advocate the removal of the quota system in Natal and say that every farmer should be permitted to produce fresh milk? I want the hon. member to be honest. He says that there is a shortage of fresh milk in Natal, but at the same time those companies which supply milk in Natal adhere to a quota system for milk. The farmer has to pay a considerable amount to obtain a quota by producing at a low price over a long period. If the hon. member is really concerned about the position in Natal, is he prepared to stand up here and to say that the quota system must be done away with? Is he prepared to do that? If he is not prepared to do so, then his questions are not honest, or he is at least being unfair. Is the hon. member prepared to say that the quota system should be abolished? Hon. members must not talk if they do not want to answer such a simple question.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) raised a few important matters to which I want to reply. The hon. member said that I had apparently maintained that the United Party wanted the Marketing Act repealed. That was not what I said. I say that the Marketing Act is sometimes wrongly interpreted by some members and allegations are made on the basis of things that are not contained in the Act at all. Nowhere in the Marketing Act is it provided that the price of a product must be determined on production costs plus a certain profit. Nowhere in the Act is that provided. The purpose of the Marketing Act is to stabilize prices as far as possible and implicit in this is the fact that the producer has a say as far as the marketing of his product is concerned. But nowhere in the Act is there a provision that a price will always remain at a certain level plus a certain profit. One cannot give an undertaking of this nature because one can never determine what the precise production costs of products are going to be as far as the various farmers are concerned.

The hon. member spoke about meat and the reserve funds of the various boards. He asked what the policy was and to what extent those funds should be built up by way of levies. I just want to tell the hon. member that the usual practice is for the levy fund to be built up until one is reasonably sure that no matter what sort of problem may arise in connection with the marketing of the product and bearing in mind the fact that one regularly has to export a large percentage of that product, the fund will be adequate to withstand a reasonable shock for a certain period. The hon. member mentioned two products particularly— wool and meat. As has been said on various occasions, the position is that as far as the Wool Fund is concerned, it enables one to stabilize the market temporarily but if there was a continual drop in wool prices, this fund would not be able to do much in that regard and one would have to follow the world price. But the fund can be used—as it has been used in the past—to absorb a between season fluctuation and to maintain some measure of stability. In order to do this one needs a fairly strong fund. But I am also beginning to feel that particularly in respect of the marketing of our wool, advertising and research have become even more important now than was the case in the past. One asks oneself whether it is necessary for the stabilization fund to continue to be built up to the same extent annually or whether one should not use a portion of the fund for advertising and research, particularly for advertising in connection with the sale of wool. We are considering this matter.

The hon. member also spoke about the possibility of the export of meat and obtaining the co-operation of the various boards to see whether we cannot make more use of our maize to produce meat, particularly for the export market. This is of course also a matter that is considered by the boards from time to time. The problem of course is that the maize prices are so high that it actually does not pay one at this stage to convert a large amount of maize into meat and then to try to sell the meat because at this stage the meat that is being exported does not fetch such high prices. But at the request of the Meat Board discussions are taking place at the moment between the Maize Control Board and the Meat Board to see whether it is not possible to find a scheme by means of which more use can be made of maize for cattle fodder and its resultant conversion into meat. I want to tell the hon. member that we have also permitted the Meat Board to export certain super grade meat on a contractual basis with farmers at a fixed guaranteed price here locally so as to test the overseas’ market for super grade beef to see to what extent we can export such meat and to what extent a loss may perhaps be incurred on the meat. But we feel generally that it is doubtful whether we in South Africa should concentrate on selling only our best meat overseas. Our experience with the export of boneless beef has taught us that we can export that type of beef at competitive prices if we buy it up here at floor prices. Experience has taught us that we can compete with other exporters to Europe. That is why I feel that we should rather concentrate on that sort of meat. By concentrating solely on the super grade young beef carcasses for export and trying to make that grade of meat our most important meat export product, we will find that because of the long distances that have be covered, because of shipping and refrigeration expenses, we will not be able to compete with countries in Europe producing the same kind of product, a product that they have to transport only a very short distance at little expense. In any case we cannot deliver the meat there in the same condition as those other countries which compete with us.

The hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) and the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) raised a few points to which I want to reply. They spoke about the system of the sale of maize in South Africa as it is being applied now and they asked whether the time had not come for us to review our internal marketing system for maize. I just want to say that the Maize Board has a committee at the moment under the chairmanship of one of the Marketing Board members and this committee is inquiring into the whole question of the marketing of maize. It will also report on marketing schemes as it is at present. I do not want to say anything further at this stage. This is a step that has also been taken in pursuance of the overseas mission and the experience gained there. In pursuance of this they will now make this further inquiry and then submit recommendations. It is possible that a change will be effected in the marketing method but I do not want to anticipate the committee’s findings at this stage.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Dodds) spoke about the bag industry and the import of jute to manufacture our own bags in this country. Of course, the hon. member knows the history of the manufacture of bags in our country. He knows that we may have boycotts imposed against us and for that reason we want to have our own bag industry here, also having regard to the possibility of increasing the internal production of certain fibres. It is of course very difficult to start from scratch any industry which has to face competition. It costs money and initially losses are usually incurred. Of course the hon. member also realizes that this aspect falls more appropriately under the Department of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. But we all realize that it is desirable for us to build up our own local bag industry. We are gradually starting to produce more fibres in South Africa from which we will eventually be able to make bags. I want to tell the hon. member that research is taking place on a wide front in an endeavour to manufacture all sorts of containers that we need in this country on a cheaper basis in order to enable us to handle our products. The Government has made large amounts available on two occasions for the building of large sheds, and there are parts of our country where the bulk handling of grain has already made considerable progress. I think for example of that part of the country that I come from—the Bredasdorp district—where the wheat co-operative as far as wheat is concerned is fully organized for the bulk handling of this product. All its grain, all its wheat is handled in bulk to-day and many of the farmers are also able to undertake bulk handling from their farms to the receiving depot. The hon. member will also know that the Maize Board has also taken over the grain elevators from the Railways, and this will also improve the position. I think that the time will come when we will be able to handle the steadily increasing quantities of maize and wheat in bulk in which case many of our problems in connection with bags will be eliminated. There are of course other products which will still have to be sold in bales but the hon. member knows that research is also being done to discover whether we cannot manufacture bags more cheaply.

I want to come now to what was said by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman). He spoke about alternative crops that can be cultivated to assist those parts which produce products of which there is a surplus production. Of course he had cotton in mind. We are all aware that this is one of the products that can be cultivated on a large scale in South Africa. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has on various occasions had discussions and entered into agreements with the manufacturers of cotton and started schemes in terms of which the producers have received a higher price than the world price. Another agreement of this nature was again entered into this year in terms of which a higher price will be paid to our local producers than is paid on the world market. But I want to point out to the hon. member that cotton is one of the products that also has to compete as a manufactured product. Once our factories have manufactured the cotton goods, they have to rely to a large extent upon the export market and they have to be able to compete there. If the manufacturer pays too much for the cotton and the producer receives too much protection as far as the local product is concerned then the manufacturer cannot compete with other countries abroad. No matter how much one wants to fix a price which will promote maximum production, one still has the problem that one cannot make that price too high because then the price of the finished product is not competitive. That is why there is a ceiling governing the price. Research is also done from time to time in order to increase the production of cotton per morgen and we hope in this way to be able to give the farmers the opportunity to produce cotton at a price that will be able to compete with the world price. Another problem is also that much of our cotton, as the hon. member himself said, is of such a good quality that having regard to the clothing that they make the factories cannot pay the high price for that cotton and they can usually buy it more cheaply abroad. They prefer to import the cheaper types of cotton. But I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will do everything in our power to keep the producer price at a level which will be an encouragement to him to produce more cotton, bearing in mind the problem that I have just mentioned.

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

Afternoon Sitting

May I claim the privilege of the half-hour? When business was suspended, the hon. the Minister was replying to the debate thus far, but what did his reply really consist of? His reply in the first place was an attack on the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) whom he asked whether he would be in favour of the abolition of the quota system now being applied by the milk producers in Natal? The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) never suggested anything of the kind this morning, nor has he ever done so before. As the hon. the Minister ought to know, the scheme originated with the milk producers themselves. But the question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is this: In December 1961 the hon. the Minister decided that the price of butter-fat would be 29c as from 1 December, a reduction of 3c per pound, and the prices of cheese milk and condensed milk would he reduced by 11c to 143c and 144c per 100 lb. of milk respectively. That was 18 months ago.

Your figures are not correct. It was 2½c and not 3c. that when temporary shortages of a particular commodity occur, they have to import it so that the consumer will not go short. In other words, as regards cheese there is no surplus in South Africa at the present time. The question we are asking the Minister then is this: When can the dairy produce farmers of South Africa expect the prices of their produce to be brought into line with the principle of supply and demand which is followed in South Africa at the present time? When is it going to return to the old basis? When are they going to receive the increase to which they are entitled, in view of the fact that when there was a surplus of the product, they were prepared to permit a reduction in their prices? If it is the Minister’s policy to apply the principle of supply and demand, and if there is no surplus now, but a shortage, when can they expect the price increase? But the Minister tells us: What would be the nature of the assistance the United Party would have given South Africa in such circumstances? Does the hon. the Minister not know then that if the United Party had been in power to-day, the circumstances under which the farmers in South Africa would have been living would have been entirely different from what they are to-day? Does he not know that the economic development of South Africa would have been on a much higher level than under this Government? Does he not know that the standard of living of the South African citizen would have been much higher than it is to-day? Not only would the purchase power of the average South African have been much greater, but I make bold to say that there would not have been surpluses under a United Party Government to the same extent that there is under a National Party Government at the present time. The hon. the Minister is surprised that we on this side argue that the Government has done nothing to reduce the costs of production. And he quotes what Agrecon says. Agrecon tells you how the Government helped to reduce the costs of production in recent years by means of subsidies on fertilizer, railway rates, rebates, etc. The Government helped to reduce the costs of production in this way. The hon. the Minister should rather have quoted from the report of his own Secretary for 1962. who tells us this on page 5: That the index as regards implements rose from 271 in 1953 to 306 in the year under review (1 July 1961 to 30 June 1962); spare parts increased from 284 to 316. Implements and snare parts taken together from 276 to 309. Why did the hon. the Minister not mention that to us? For these are matters that affect the farmers. The subsidies on bread, on wheat, do not help only the farmer.

I never mentioned that.

It is true that the subsidy in respect of fertilizer helped the farmer produce more cheaply, but what about all the other important things, such as implements? Can you produce at the present day without large-scale mechanization?

What about wages?

Wages are not even mentioned. But let us look at the lorries: From 338 to 408; tractors, from 250 to 272; fuel, 190 to 201. I am mentioning only a few. A few are also mentioned in respect of which there was a reduction, such as fencing material and building material.

What about agricultural produce?

The hon. member wants me to quote the figures in relation to agricultural produce. I shall do that: In 1953-4 maize 337—in 1961-2, 321. Is that an increase?

Wheat?

Yes, there was an improvement from 278 to 285. But take peanuts: 370 dropped to 350. A reduction in price. Wool, 617 to 424.

Is the Minister to blame for that?

Let us look at butterfat: 320 to 294; cheese milk from 364 to 326; condensed milk, 278 to 252; poultry, 246 to 234. I think the hon. member for Bethlehem regrets already that he ever put the question and that I had to read the figures. I thought I would spare the Minister that embarrassment. But that is the position most of the farmers in South Africa have to face up to. Yet the Minister comes along and tells us that they have succeeded in helping the farmers to reduce the costs of production. I just want to read to him what a prominent farmer in my area, in the Eastern Province, says about costs of production. He is Mr. Crous, the chairman of the East Coast Agricultural Union. It is an extract from the Eastern Province Herald of 17 August last year—

So he continues and he says it is almost impossible for the farmer because—

And that is a fact. The colossal production we have had in South Africa in recent years— and the Minister’s Secretary also refers to this in his report, to the contribution of more than R800.000.000 by agriculture to the national income of South Africa—I do not think that production could have been achieved if the farmers had not done everything in their power to do so. They had had to mechanize and the increase in the number of tractors on the farms is proof of that, and those things cost a lot of money; every farmer knows that. But it is very certain that the margins of profit of most farmers have dropped in recent years. Here also I could quote the Secretary and this is what he said in Agrecon of 1962—

It is an incontrovertible fact that the margins of profit have become increasingly smaller, and the hon. member for Christiana is nodding his head in agreement. That is why I think we have made a little more progress in this House than at the beginning of the year, namely, that we are prepared to agree that the farmers are no longer prospering, in other words, that their position is becoming steadily worse. So, if the hon. member for Cradock rises and tells us that certain steps will now be taken to canalize agricultural credit for the farmer, and that a special Department will be established for the finances of the farmer, I should like to ask the Minister how much progress has been made in that direction? Is that Department still going to be established this year? Has the Cabinet approved it, or was it only a propaganda trick of the hon. member for Cradock and his farming group to indicate that not only the United Party but they also are concerned about the position of the farmers?

Another matter I should like to put to the Minister is this: Better plans must be made to bring the products of the farmer to the notice of the consumer. That is why I say there should be greater marketing research. I see in the Oosterlig of 30 October last year that they Say—

It is said that these committees are busy. It will be welcomed if the overlapping and the expenditure incurred by control boards on their own could be eliminated, and if we can prevent the advertising campaigns costing so much, but we should like to know from the Minister how far this research has progressed. When are the first steps going to be taken to bring the product of the South African farmer to the attention of the consumers more effectively? The hon. the Minister ought to tell us these things, because these questions are being asked not only in debates of this nature, but at every agricultural congress, so much so that the farmers are already saying at congresses that the control boards no longer serve their purpose.

Where?

The South African Agricultural Union’s Secretary, according to the Landbou-weekblad of 8 May 1962 says this—

He is no longer there.

But the statement he made is still there. We are merely asking the Minister how much progress has been made, to see to it that the control boards co-operate to a greater extent and that more effective publicity campaigns are launched to bring the product of the farmer to the notice of people. The Minister says they already have been successful as regards cheese, so much so that there is no longer a surplus of cheese, but a shortage in fact, so that they had to import cheese. If publicity could have been so successful, can it not then also be successful as regards, e.g., meat, mealies and deciduous fruit, and everything that is being controlled at the present time under the Marketing Act, so that the farmer at least will know that the contribution he makes in the form of levies to the various control boards is being well spent?

But in this House, and in this debate, it has also appeared, as the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) has said, that the farmers of the Highveld are very satisfied with the prices they are receiving.

No, I did not say that.

The hon. member said that there were 600 people at a meeting and that only one was dissatisfied. But what is the true position? Last year, at the congress of the Free State Agricultural Union, the following was mentioned—

But the area where the hon. member says the people are satisfied is the very region in which they are making the least profit.

You are distorting my words.

Order! The hon. member may not say the hon. member is distorting his words, and he must withdraw it.

I withdraw that, but I say he is misrepresenting the position.

The hon. member must withdraw without reservation. The hon. member may continue.

The hon. member wished to create the impression that those people are extremely satisfied. It may be that the farmers now are satisfied with the new increases that have been announced, but it does not follow that they are satisfied with the new maize prices. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has already said that we must not think that the increase just introduced will be the solution to the problems of the maize farmers. This swinging to and fro of the prices of the products of the farmer is the very item that causes them most concern. I just want to mention the example of wheat prices. In the 1961-2 season, they were given an increase of 7.2/3 cents per bag on the previous year, and the increase is attributed to the increase in the costs of production, such as the increased price of bags. But what happened then? In 1962-3 a reduction of 12 cents per bag is given to the wheat farmer, and the Minister and the control boards then said it is attributable to the decrease in the costs of production. The dissatisfaction among the grain farmers of South Africa in respect of this policy of the Government of tampering from day to day with the prices they receive is one of the main reasons for the instability in agriculture at the present time. The farmer does not know where he is from day to day, and he cannot plan properly for the future. This year again the grain farmers of the Western Province and the Free State had to sow their grain before knowing what the prices for the ensuing season would be. No wonder we had prominent wheat farmers such as Mr. de Villiers Loubser saying this in the Landbou-weekblad of 14 May of this year—

And we know the maize farmers are dissatisfied with their prices.

Analyse that.

I do not have the time to do so now. But the position is that they do not know where they are from year to year. If the Minister, with their surveys of costs of production, cannot arrive at a stage where they have a fixed formula, there will never be stability in this industry. They must have a fixed formula for the farmer of South Africa, and especially for the wheat farmer, so that they can tell the people that for the next few years the farmers may be sure of a fixed price.

But they do have that.

But in one year there is a drop and the next year there is a rise. [Interjection.] The hon. member must understand that many people are engaged in producing wheat, and they incur tremendous expense for one year’s harvest, and it is an enormous risk the grain farmer is running every year, and the hon. member loses sight of that. Apart from the capital expenditure in respect of machinery, there are his seed and fertilizer; the grain farmer annually incurs great expenditure just to put his seed in the soil. Therefore it is essential that you should tell him: You may be sure of that price, and that price will exist for a number of years, or at least the formula for it. If you cannot do that, you must expect a lack of confidence in this industry. The Minister and all of us know that there is no surplus, but a shortage of wheat. We have to import wheat annually. Is it not possible to plan for the next five years so that the people will know where they are, and so that in the next five years they will produce so much that the industry can become stabilized? I am quite sure a surplus will not develop in the next few years, but I will not say that we shall never have a surplus of wheat, but the Minister should take the grain farmers into his confidence and give them stability for the future.

Now there are a few other matters I should like to mention. We have been told repeatedly that South Africa must be prepared, when it has an export market for certain products, to compete on that market. The Minister said so again to-day. But the overseas market for the South African agricultural product is a shrinking market and not an expanding market, because there are so many countries in the world competing on that market. We know that if Britain were to join the European Common Market there will not be such a tremendous opportunity to expand our market. If it should come about, we know that there possibly may be tremendous losses involved for the South African export farmer, as the Secretary also has said in his report. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) delivered a lengthy speech on wheat. I think he ventured onto dangerous ground because I know he is not a wheat farmer and that his knowledge may be somewhat limited. He said that the wheat farmers will not be prepared to sow before they know what the price is going to be. That may be compared with a woolgrower such as he is. I should think that he must keep his sheep in the enclosure and not shear them before he knows what the wool price is going to be, and he must keep his rams away from the ewes because he does not know what the price of lambs is going to be! It seems so fatuous to me. The hon. member says the sowing season passes before the prices are announced. I do not think any sensible person can make such a statement. He knows that when it is time to sow, you have to plough. Then there is only one factor that worries the farmer and that is the rain, and over that we have no control. That is the only factor over which there is no control. We do have control over the other factors. The hon. member has argued that the farmers would be better off if that party were in power. I know he is young. He has perhaps forgotten, or will not remember, that while his party was in power the people had to stand in queues to obtain food.

There was a war on.

The people could not obtain white bread. The women had to use their stockings to sift meal if they wished to bake white bread. Has he forgotten that? We could not go to a shop and buy 5 lbs. of sugar, because it was not available. Nor was there any meat in the country, and why not? Because there was no good planning to place the farmers on a basis on which he now expects the Minister to place the wheat farmers. My hon. friend, who is a woolgrower, now says that the farmers are faring worse now than 15 years ago.

The farmer’s profits are less.

Yes, but are things worse? No, the hon. member is not prepared to reply because he knows things are no worse for the farmer. On the contrary, it is going_ much better. I am a farmer myself, and that is why I know this.

I quoted what the Secretary of Agriculture said.

If the hon. member had had a little more experience he would have drawn the correct inference. He said implements and lorries and spare parts had become more expensive. Of course they have become more expensive. What determines the price of an article? It is the cost of production. What determines the price of wheat and maize? It is the cost of production. What determines the price of implements and tractors? It is the cost of production. Take the wages paid in this country 15 years ago and compare it with to-day’s. It is five times more than it was then. And I do not begrudge the people that. Must they then live on wind? He has to work hard, but the hon. member says he must not be paid for it, because the tractor must remain cheap.

But does the farmer not work?

Of course he works, but I do not begrudge the factory worker and the farm labourer every penny they earn more in recent years. What was the hon. member’s servants earning 15 years ago, and in what kind of house were they living? I know the hon. member has made great improvements on his farm. Why does he try to give us a wrong impression? I do not say the farmers may live in luxury, but, goodness me, I who grew up in the Karoo, where the hon. member also farms, cannot to-day recognize a farm I knew 40 years ago. And how was it done? It has been built up with money, and where did the farmer get that money? Now the hon. member must not sit and laugh. With what did they drill the boreholes, wire the fences and improve the herds? Twenty years ago a farmer sheared 4 lb. of wool from a sheep, but to-day only a poor farmer shears less than 10 lb. It is because more expensive rams were bought. The stud breeders improved their herds, and that could not be done without money. The days when we paid £5 for a ram have passed. To-day you pay £40 for a ram and I gladly pay the price and I do not begrudge the stud farmer that, because he has sunk a lot of capital into his stud farm. I ask again, where did he get that capital? He made it from his farming operations.

But before I sit down I should like to make an appeal to all our farmers, particularly here in Parliament, in regard to the use of wool. Millions of rand are spent on advertisements for the promotion of wool. We ought to set an example, but we do not. Not even 5 per cent of those of us sitting here to-day are wearing woollen ties. Which of us is to-day wearing a decent suit made of wool? The old idea that woollen clothes are clumsy and unattractive has gone. Research has resulted in us being able to obtain some of the neatest woollen clothes for both men and women. The time has arrived that we who are making laws here, also should set an example and that we should wear woollen clothes and ties, and even woollen socks, so that there may be a greater market for wool.

I want to make use of this opportunity to draw the Minister’s attention as a matter of urgency to the parlous position in which the producer of industrial milk finds himself. I want to concentrate particularly on an area which I know very well, and that is the milk collection area of the Reivilo Dairy Co-operative Society. Since the Dairy Board has ordered that industrial milk is to be bought on a butterfat basis it has become evident that the butterfat content in this area, namely on the Ghaap plateau, differs considerably from the butterfat content in other parts of the country and that it shows a definite downward trend. I concede that the type of grazing presumably plays an important role in this matter. Nevertheless milk of good quality is produced here, as is evident from the quality of the cheese which is manufactured at Reivilo and which is 100 per cent first-grade. If we can manufacture that quality of cheese, it only goes to show that there can be nothing wrong with our milk. I want to point out to the Minister, however, that the price of industrial milk with a butterfat content of 3.5 per cent was reduced from 156.6 cents in May 1960 to 133 cents in December 1961 and that the present price is 138 cents per 100 lb. of milk. During this period in which there has been a drop in the price of milk, production costs have steadily increased: railway rates have been systematically increased and have resulted in an increase in the price of fuel and therefore also in an increase in the cost of transporting milk. The prices of all products required in the production of milk, namely bonemeal, stock feeds, etc., have increased but there has been a steady downward trend in the price of milk. This situation of rising production costs on the one hand and a decrease in industrial milk prices on the other has now reached breaking-point. I can assure the Minister that in the Reivilo cheese factory area the general tendency is to discontinue milk production, a tendency which in my opinion should be checked, particularly in view of the present shortage of cheese. In spite of unfavourable climatic conditions the cheese factory at Reivilo has been built up throughout the years into a huge factory, in fact the biggest in the country, but the Board of Directors is perturbed about the present situation. Another aspect which has been brought to my notice as a matter of urgency is the rate at which the price of milk drops or rises in relation to its butterfat content. As you know, the price of milk is reduced or increased by 3 cents per 100 lb. for every 0.1 per cent reduction or increase in the butterfat content of milk. In my opinion the drop or the rise in the butterfat content is not always in keeping with the drop or the rise in the cheese yield. I have here a memorandum which was sent to me by the Reivilo Dairy Co-operative Society, and in this connection I should like to quote the following—

Viewed from another angle, the case can be stated as follows: When the present price variation of 3 cents per 100 lb. of milk was fixed, that is to say, on 1 March 1961, the basic price of cheese milk was 150 cents per 100 lb. Since then the price has dropped to 133 cents per 100 lb. and to-day it again stands at 138 cents per 100 lb., a net increase of 8 per cent therefore. If the variation of 3 cents per 100 lb. was correct for a basic price of 150 cents per 100 lb. (although in our opinion it was already too big) then it is definitely excessive for a basic price of 138 cents. In order to retain the correct relationship, the 3 cents should also have been reduced by 8 cents. Since the butterfat content of the milk on the Ghaap plateau shows such great fluctuations, this 8 per cent, which works cumulatively, could make a big difference to the income of the suppliers. We feel, particularly in view of the fact that the average butterfat content of the milk in this area is lower than in the rest of the country and since after all, the milk, as far as “quality” is concerned, is very suitable for the manufacture of cheese, that this big price variation unduly penalizes the suppliers in this area.

If the conditions on the Ghaap plateau differ so materially from those in the rest of the country that this first argument is not valid everywhere, we feel that we have given ample reasons why the Reivilo Dairy Cooperative Society as a co-operative society should be allowed itself to determine the price variation for the milk of its members on a more realistic basis. If necessary, a limit can be set to the permissible variations.

I should like to associate myself with this request and make an urgent appeal to the Minister to assist this factory in this matter. I want to give the Committee the assurance once again that the position has reached breaking point as far as the dairy industry in this area is concerned. The shareholders of this factory would like to retain what they have built up throughout the years but under present conditions they find it extremely difficult to do so. This factory is capable of processing 30,000 gallons of milk a day and it has been modernized more and more throughout the years at tremendous expense. It goes without saying that the more milk the factory can collect in this particular collection area, the more remuneratively the factory can function. The farms are separated by great distances and if the present conditions force farmers, as the tendency is at present, to give up dairy farming, it will mean fewer gallons of milk per mile and possibly an increase in transport charges, which would then automatically cause the price of milk to drop even lower. I want to point out to the Minister that during the period August 1959 to August 1962, when there was a reasonable cheese surplus, this co-operative society refrained from insisting on higher prices for milk, but we very seriously urge today that those prices should be revised and that the Minister should do his utmost to come to the assistance of the people in that area.

I should like to extend my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. du Plessis) on the speech which he has just made and on the way in which he stepped into the breach for his constituents. His speech will not be very popular with the Minister, of course, but I am sure his friends on the other side agree with every word that the hon. member said.

I do not want to become involved in the argument between the rich wool farmers and the poor dairy farmers. I want to break a lance for a small group of people, the poultry farmers, who are making a good living to-day, but who still need a great deal of assistance from the Government. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) in my opinion put his finger this morning on the reason why it is altogether impossible to-day for a beginner or for a person with little capital to become a farmer. As far as I know there is only one branch of farming to-day in which one can start on a small scale and make a living out of it, and that is in poultry farming. Three months after buying a day-old chicken, one can market it; one gets one’s capital back quickly and one can make a living out of poultry farming. But unfortunately we have also had a surplus of poultry and poultry products over the past few years. Last year, for example, South Africa produced 38,000,000 dozen eggs, in other words, 1,300,000 cases of 30 dozen. Over the past 10 years production has increased by 10,000,000 dozen. The Egg Board was obliged to export a fair quantity of these eggs. Last year, for example, the board succeeded in exporting 272,000 cases of eggs as well as 200 tons of frozen eggs, but unfortunately it had to do so at a loss. Unfortunately there has been a gradual shrinkage of the markets to which we have been exporting our eggs and egg products. There has been a reduction in the quantity of eggs imported into Britain and Germany from South Africa; in Italy, Aden and other places there has been an increased demand but unfortunately, because of limited shipping facilities, we have not been able to export more. The result is that last year exports dropped by about 12,000 cases in comparison with the previous year. This industry is still expanding and it is necessary to find markets for this increased production. We all know that the Egg Control Board is doing its best to find markets overseas, but the board is unable to sell all our surplus eggs abroad. It is up to us therefore to try to find a different market for our surplus eggs, and I want to suggest to-day that the Egg Control Board or the Minister’s Department should try to see whether we cannot persuade our Native population to consume more poultry and eggs. We know that the eating habits of the Natives in South Africa are changing; they are eating more meat and more bread to-day than they did formerly. We also know that there is a good deal of malnutrition in certain parts of our country. If we can persuade the Natives to eat eggs we shall be able to supplement the present deficiencies in their diet and at the same time create a market for our eggs. I would go so far as to say that we should rather give the eggs which we are exporting at a loss to-day to the Native at a lower price. Let us first teach them to eat eggs; once we have succeeded in doing so, they will continue to eat eggs. We have heard here to-day what the effect has been of a comparatively small propaganda campaign in this country as far as cheese is concerned. Within a year after the initiation of that propaganda campaign there is a shortage of cheese in this country to-day. Sir, it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Minister and his Department to think out ways of teaching the Native to eat poultry and eggs. It is interesting to see how many eggs can be consumed in this country. I just want to refer to one location in my constituency, namely Alexandra about which we heard such a great deal here the other day. At the moment there are 50,000 Natives in Alexandra. If everyone of them were to eat one egg per day, they would eat almost 50,000 cases of eggs per annum—50,000 cases —whereas our total exports only amount to 272,000 cases. This is just one small place; there are so many other examples that I could mention. I leave this thought with the Minister. I do feel that he will be giving great fillip to poultry farming, which forms a very important part of our farming industry, if he succeeds in persuading the Natives to eat more eggs and poultry.

The thread which has run throughout this debate to-day as far as the United Party is concerned is that the poor farmers of South Africa are going through very hard times. I do not propose to reply to all the arguments of hon. members on that side, but I should like to put this question to them. If it is true that the poor farmers are struggling so much, why has the price of land increased so enormously in recent years? The hon. member who has just sat down, referred to the speech of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) and said that the high price of land was really the reason why people with little capital were unable to start farming. But the price of land is high for the very reason that things are going well for the farmer of South Africa. If that were not so, the farmer would not be able to afford to pay these high prices for land.

But I do not intend to follow these hon. members because I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister a matter in which I am keenly interested. I refer to attempts which are being made in the Citrus Board to obtain complete control once again over the internal marketing of citrus. We know the history of control over the internal marketing of citrus. Before 1941 there was no control whatsoever. In 1941 control was instituted under the Marketing Act and it remained in force until 1945. In 1945 a slight change was made again. From 1947 to 1956 there was control only over the large-scale producers, and since 1957 there has been no control at all, but there is a very strong demand to-day in the Citrus Board, which is largely controlled by the South African Citrus Exchange, that full control over the internal marketing of citrus should be re-instituted. The Deciduous Fruit Board made the discovery as far back as 1951 that the internal marketing of a product cannot be controlled within the area of production, because in order to be able to do so one would need an army of officials to exercise supervision to ensure that the control measures are not contravened, and since our orange-production areas are spread over the whole of the country practically I submit with all due deference that it will prove impracticable to exercise control over the internal marketing of citrus in South Africa because one would need an army of officials to enforce it. The unfortunate part of it is that the Citrus Board is controlled by the gentlemen of the South African Citrus Exchange who in the main represent the large-scale producers. There are only two members on the Citrus Board really who represent the small-scale producers. They are hopelessly in the minority and there is a very great danger therefore that full control over the internal marketing of citrus may once again be instituted. The plea that I want to make to the hon. the Minister this afternoon therefore is that he should not allow the introduction of control, without any limitations, over the marketing of citrus in South Africa, because these gentlemen talk about control under a pool system. In the Western Cape we have a small number of small-scale producers who concentrate mainly on the production of oranges for the offseason market. If they had to be drawn into the proposed pool they would simply be ruined. I notice in the report of the Citrus Board for 1962 that for navels in the home market they paid 18.9c per pocket and 13.9c per pocket for Valencias. As against that these farmers who market during the off-season get anything from 60c to 100c per pocket. They would simply be ruined if their product had to go into the pool, and I would therefore urge upon the hon. the Minister not to allow these farmers to be drawn into the proposed pool because it would ruin them. They produce for a specific market; they produce for a market which extends mainly from about 15 to 31 October up to the end of February. I trust that the hon. the Minister will not accede to the demands that complete control should be re-instituted.

In the few minutes which I still have at my disposal I should like to make a few comments on the scope of agricultural co-operative societies. I link up these remarks with the very unfortunate occurrence some weeks ago when we found that a country-wide co-operative society was forced to go into liquidation. There are a few other large co-operative societies as well which are finding themselves in very difficult financial circumstances, and we want to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department at this stage therefore to give us a clear lead once again as to the spheres which agricultural co-operative societies may justifiably enter. To me it is perfectly clear that the time is past when co-operative societies should be established on a compulsory basis. Compulsory co-operative societies have been replaced by agricultural control boards. In my opinion the sphere of non-compulsory, that is to say, voluntary co-operative societies, is fairly limited. It does not seem right to me, for example, that an agricultural co-operative society should risk entering a highly specialized commercial sphere or a specialized industrial sphere, and I would welcome it therefore if the hon. Minister and his Department would once again give a very clear lead to the farming community of South Africa as to the scope of agricultural co-operative societies because the co-operative society movement in South Africa is dealt a very serious blow when circumstances arise, such as we have had recently, where a country-wide co-operative society is forced to go into liquidation. I want to emphasize that in making these observations I do not do so because I am against agricultural cooperative societies. On the contrary, I have the privilege to serve on the Board of Directors of various agricultural co-operative societies and I am anxious that our agricultural co-operative societies should operate extremely successfully, but in that case we must limit ourselves to spheres about which the farmers themselves, who are going to constitute the Board of Directors of the co-operative society, have sufficient knowledge so that they as the masters of that co-operative society will be able to guide their manager, so that we do not find ourselves in the position that the Board of Directors consisting of farmers is completely dependent for guidance on the manager, because then we would be looking for trouble and then we would get the sort of situation that we have just had where a country-wide co-operative society goes under to the detriment of the co-operative society movement in this country. [Time limit.]

I should like to associate myself with the observation made by the hon. the Minister with reference to the Marketing Act, and that is that it is simply an enabling Act which grants certain powers to the Minister. One’s thoughts involuntarily turn to the charge made here in previous debates by hon. members opposite that the Marketing Act has allegedly been violated in recent times; that the powers granted under the Act have been abused and that the Act should be amended. I should also like to refer to what was said a moment ago by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), and that is that if the United Party had been in power today the farmers would have flourished. I just want to remind the United Party that during the period they were in power they also had at their disposal the powers granted under the Marketing Act, and how did the United Party Government use those powers? At a time when world prices were high, they used the powers granted to them under the Marketing Act to force domestic prices lower and lower. Moreover, while prices abroad were high, they simply reduced the internal prices when the production exceeded the local requirements. That is how the United Party Government used the powers granted under the Marketing Act. They are the last people who can talk about a misuse of the powers of the Marketing Act. On the contrary, they abused the powers which the Marketing Act gave them. The hon. member continually talks about formulae. I want to ask the hon. member whether the United Party Government ever drew up a formula for the fixation of agricultural prices, in the case of any agricultural product, in which the cost of production was taken into account. In no single case did they take into account the cost of production in determining the price. Those prices were simply fixed arbitrarily. Prices were fixed on the basis of our domestic requirements. If that formula were to be applied to-day agricultural prices would drop very considerably indeed. Sir, I indicated my agreement when the hon. member said that he had read in the report of the Secretary for Agriculture that there had been a gradual reduction in the margin of prolit. Yes, that is true but nevertheless there has still been a margin of profit. I had occasion to refer recently to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) who confirmed some time ago that it was the opinion of the United Party that we should adapt our prices to overseas prices, but he says that those adjustments must take place gradually. That, he says, is the policy of the United Party. As far as the Marketing Act is concerned and the remarks made here by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), I just want to remove a misunderstanding here. Following upon the Marketing Act, the Maize Regulation Act was introduced, and under that legislation the one-channel system was instituted, a system for which the farmers had fought for many years. Prior to the introduction of this system prices had dropped to a very low level. If we do away with the one-channel system and introduce a floor price, as suggested by him, then the hon. member makes a very great mistake if he thinks that R2.87, which is the price this year, will continue to be the price. Under a floor-price system an advance price is agreed upon with the Land Bank. That advance price would be much lower—it is usually 75 per cent—than the price that will eventually be received. The price agreed upon would then be paid to the farmers as an advance. When the whole crop has been disposed of, the balance in the pool, after taking into account the losses or the profits, is then divided amongst the farmers. I can assure the hon. member that it is out of the question that the subsidy which the State pays to-day, both to cover the administrative costs connected with mealies and to pay the agents, can be used to cover export losses. That simply could not be done because it would be conflict with international agreements. Unter the GATT agreement the State is not allowed to subsidize exports. The State is subsidizing the internal consumption of mealies at the present time, but it in no way subsidizes the export of maize. The maize industry has to carry its own costs, both the administrative costs and the storage costs.

We have a crop to-day of just about 60,000,000 to 62,000,000 bags, of which only 25,000,000 bags are sold in the local market. That means that for every one bag sold locally, two bags have to be exported. The hon. member alleges that the Maize Board is the biggest middleman. This difference between the internal price and the external price is absorbed largely by levy moneys. Whichever way the hon. member looks at the position, the difference between the internal price and the external price has to be made up by means of levy moneys. Those levy moneys have to make up the losses on export prices. The losses have to be met in some way or another. The hon. member mentions the example of the floor-price system in connection with kaffir-corn. Let me tell him at once that the farmers are not satisfied either with the kaffir-corn floor-price system because there are such tremendous variations in price. There is no stable price under such a system. In the case of the kaffir-corn floor-price system it is an easy matter to collect the levy moneys. The kaffir-corn crop is less than 3,000,000 bags and the levy has risen as high as 130c per bag, but it is easy to collect it because it is collected from the malt manufacturer before it is sold. It is a good deal more difficult to collect the levy moneys in the case of maize to cover the export losses. That makes one’s task much more difficult. Those losses have to be covered. I think I am right in saying that in a year such as this, with such a large crop, the farmers, under a maize floor-price system, could expect no more than R2 per bag by way of “voorskot” (advance payment), and then after 12 months or longer, when the whole crop has been disposed of, they can then expect a deferred payment. [Time limit.]

I should like to go a little bit further than the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). If he is correct that the Minister is responsible for determining the overall policy in regard to the activities of the Marketing Board I think it is logical to say that production of surpluses and the eventual disposal of those surpluses are dependent upon the policy followed by the Minister. That is the issue I wish to raise. I also wish to take a point raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) a little bit further. He has referred to the necessity for adequate market research in regard to the disposal of surpluses. Hon. members on the Government benches have also from time to time advanced suggestions in that regard.

I wish to confine myself to the disposal of the mealie surplus. The Minister is responsible for the policy in regard to the disposal of surpluses and he is also responsible for the policy dealing with the production of those surpluses. We have the position to-day that the mealie farmers are caught in a vicious circle. They are forced to continue to produce a crop, because of lack of Government policy, of which there is a surplus in order to pay their way. What surprises me, Sir, is that the Minister who is responsible for the marketing of all our agricultural products has not at any time come forward with suggestions to farmers in regard to the production of other commodities of which there is not a surplus and for which there is probably a great internal demand and a great export market.

You are talking nonsense.

You see, Sir, whenever one tries to say anything constructive in this House you just get observations from Ministers that one is talking nonsense. We are faced with a simple little issue in South Africa namely that we are producing millions of bags of surplus maize. I am trying to make a constructive suggestion to the Minister in regard to the disposal of that surplus.

Do you say that I have not done anything about it?

Has the hon. the Minister ever made a positive suggestion from any platform in South Africa in regard to alternative crops which the farmers can produce?

Of course.

The Minister knows the position in which many small farmers find themselves. The Chief Whip on the Government side is the chairman of my co-operative society. He knows the position of many members of that co-operative society; he knows that they cannot produce mealies any longer at an economical rate; he knows that they lose on those mealies. But no alternative has ever come from the hon. the Minister in regard to a possible alternative crop.

I say again you are talking nonsense.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that there are alternative crops. We have the example of other nations in the world who were also faced with an over production of maize and the disposal of those surpluses where the Governments took the lead by directing the farmers away from the production of a crop whose surplus could not be disposed of economically…

It is being sold; the whole surplus.

Is the hon. member for Christiana telling me that the surplus maize crop of South Africa is being sold at a profit?

Yes.

Where? I want to quote the example of the United States of America to the Minister. They were faced with precisely the same problem as we are faced with to-day. They suggested to the farmers of America that there was an alternative crop which had vast industrial uses namely the soya bean, the bean that is known as the wonder bean.

That is an old idea of years ago.

It may be an old thought but it is a thought which can well be applied here in South Africa. I want to know from the Minister what his policy is in this regard? I have a series of letters here which I think the committee will find interesting. They show the short-sightedness of our Marketing Board in certain respects. I as a small farmer was interested in the issue so I addressed a letter on 8 March to the Dried Bean Control Board. As you know, Sir, that board is administered by the Mealie Control Board. I wrote to them as follows—

On 20 March I received the following letter

A couple of days later I wrote to the Secretary of the Minister’s Department as follows—

That, Sir, was on I may. To this day I have not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgment from the Minister’s Department.

It was not my Department, but the Department of Technical Services.

At the same time I addressed a letter, in reply to his letter, to the Secretary of the Dried Bean Control Board in which I said—

I got a reply to that letter dated 16 May, again signed by the Secretary, on a letterhead of the Mealie Industry Control Board, which said—

That is the short-sighted approach. I have not, of course, heard what the board’s views are. The production of the soya bean has certain vast industrial uses; industrial uses which are predetermined. The production of oil from the soya bean holds out wider prospects than in the case of any other agricultural product known. It holds out the prospect of the manufacture of plastics to the manufacture of paint and the feeding of children. I go so far as to say that there is not a single member in this House who did not, in his early days, consume soya beans. Baby food is made out of soya beans to the extent of 50 per cent.

You would think that where a vicious circle has developed, where farmers have to go on producing mealies and where they are caught up in ever-increasing production costs and where they are faced with an ever-increasing problem of disposing of that surplus, that the Government would turn round and say to those farmers: “All right, I have another plan for you; we suggest you produce another crop for which we have wider uses.” If the soya bean has such wide industrial uses, for which we are not from an industrial viewpoint equipped to handle to-day, you would think the Minister would at least get up and say to the farmers: “The Government will see to it that your crop is taken from you; we will finance the necessary disposal of the crop,” as was done in the United States of America. When you look at the figures—I do not want to quote them in the time available to me— you will find that the soya bean in America has developed into one of the vastest and greatest industries from the agricultural point of view. There is no surplus problem. The whole of the Far East is crying out for soya beans. Our own mining industry is to-day asking for soya beans. In reply to another letter which I addressed to the Minister’s Department two years ago I was told that kaffir beer had now replaced the soya bean as food for Natives in the mine compounds. [Time limit.]

As a back-bencher on this side of the House I find it remarkable that the Opposition who regard themselves as the alternative Government right from the beginning of this debate till now have only tried to refer to the Minister and his Department in a critical and belittling manner. The Opposition has not succeeded in coming forward with an alternative policy which is acceptable to the farmers. You would have expected the Opposition to avail themselves of this opportunity to say: This is what we are offering to you as farmers. It is clear, therefore, that the Opposition do not have that alternative to offer.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him because I think his plea simply amounts to this that it is a matter between him and the Minister’s Department which is not replying to his correspondence. I must say that it is usual for us on this side of the House, when we have a difference of opinion with a Minister of a Department, to go there and settle the matter. We do not take up the time of this House for that purpose.

I should like to return to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). As the member who introduced the debate on that side of the House the hon. member referred to the position in the northern Transvaal with special reference to the Lydenburg constituency and other drought-stricken areas. The hon. member said that those people could no longer make a living and that this Government only offered assistance when the people were already down on their knees. The hon. member lacked the courage of her conviction, however, and did not reply when the hon. the Minister asked her whether she was in favour of it that alms should be handed out to those people. She did not want to reply to that. It is, of course, absolutely necessary that such an irresponsible statement be reacted to. I take it that the hon. member spoke on behalf of the United Party members in that area and in that constituency. That is why nobody is surprised when the majorities of the National Party are continually increasing in the platteland. The self-respecting farmers in those drought-stricken areas do not, of course, want any alms from the Government. I am obliged, and it is also my pleasant privilege, on behalf of those farmers who have not reaped a crop for three/four successive years but who have had only expenditure, to convey our sincere gratitude to the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing for the assistance which has been given to those farmers. We thank him sincerely because had it not been for that assistance, assistance which the hon. member has degraded to the level of patchwork, many of those farmers would no longer have been on their farms.

While I am on my feet it is also my privilege to convey our gratitude to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions with whom I am negotiating at the moment in order to submit representations to the Government in regard to further auxiliary schemes which will meet the domestic needs of those families which have been hard hit. It is true that we have only had a very sympathetic ear from this Minister when we told him that the one Department had attended to the agricultural needs but that the domestic needs of those people still had to be seen to. Mr. Chairman, alongside the gratitude which we want to convey to the Ministers concerned, it is also my privilege to tell this House how important the agricultural sector is in our national economy. It is true that in the short time at my disposal I cannot make a proper comparison with the other sectors of our national economy. It is necessary to point out that over the past year, 1961-2, as far as agriculture is concerned, the gross agricultural yield reached the figure of R846,700,000 as against R814,400,000 in the previous year. That proves the vitality of our agricultural economy; in spite of all the setbacks it has nevertheless shown an increase of R31,300,000, in other words, a percentage increase of 3.8 per cent.

We are aware of the fact that our price structure is to a very great extent dependent on our internal consumption and our export market as far as our agricultural products are concerned. That is why I think it is of the very greatest importance that we should show how our products fare on the overseas market. In the year 1960-1 we exported agricultural products to the value of R311,000,000; last year it was R373,100,000. In other words, there has been an increase of R62,100,000 which is an appreciable increase, an increase which has benefited the farmers because the Government developed those overseas markets and found new markets for our products. We found that because those markets had been developed wool, karakul pelts and citrus fetched appreciably higher prices on the overseas market than in previous years. The price of other products remained constant and in the case of a few commodities there was a slight decrease in the price on the overseas market. This is indeed an achievement on the part of the National Government. Have hon. members on the other side of the House expressed any gratitude to the Minister of to the Department for what has been done for the farmers?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the statement that there are more incalculable and uncontrollable factors in the agricultural industry than in any other industry. The question which arises is this: How is it possible that this industry can experience such prosperity in the fact of all those unfavourable factors? The reply is that it is because the agricultural industry has been built on various pillars, pillars on which the whole agricultural structure rests. One of these pillars is the cooperative societies. I want to deal with this subject briefly. The co-operative society system has been built by the farmer, for the farmer, from the farmer. The underlying idea was that the farmers realized, when they had to go hat in hand in the past to one trader after the other to trade or sell their products in the most humiliating way, that co-operative societies would have to be established. That is why I say they were born from stress, by the farmers, for the farmers, from the farmers.

Mr. Chairman, the idea of co-operative societies has fired the imagination of our people. That is why our sons and daughters have thrown their best talents and energies into our co-operative society movement. There are numbers of persons who have sacrificed brilliant academic careers for the sake of this wonderful cause. That is why we have some of the best brains in the Republic in the cooperative society movement to-day. The cooperative society movement is consequently the pride of the farmer to-day in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, let us consider the important functions which co-operative societies fulfil. It is true that this fact is not sufficiently emphasized in the world outside. It is clear to me that the co-operative societies and the people in the employ of those societies do not get sufficient credit for what they have sacrificed. In the first place the co-operative societies constitute one of our most important marketing channels. Take tobacco, for example, of which practically 100 per cent is marketed co-operatively. In the case of grain it is 90 per cent, citrus 80 per cent, wine products practically 100 per cent, meat 35 per cent. Similarly fruit and many other products are to a great extent sold co-operatively. That is why I say it is one of the, if not the, most important marketing channels. It is also true that cooperative societies constitute your most important distribution channel because in this way agricultural requirements, consumer goods etc. are placed at the disposal of the public.

Finally it is also true that the co-operative society is a very important financial institution. I wish to state as a fact that next to the State co-operative societies constitute the most important short-term financial institutions in the Republic. They make production loan facilities, seasonal loans and monthly accounts available to a large extent. It is the custom among co-operative societies on the platteland to extend these facilities to the farmers as members of the society.

Mr. Chairman, what has the co-operative society movement achieved? It is necessary to point out how the membership has increased, how it has increased phenomenally. That shows how the co-operative society idea has fired the imagination of the nation. On 30 June 1962 there were 307 registered agricultural co-operative societies with a total membership of 290,550. Apart from that there were 159 registered consumer co-operative societies with a total membership of 127,298. On 30 June 1962 therefore, there was a total of 466 registered co-operative societies in the Republic with a total membership of 417,848 which is indeed an achievement on the part of the South African farmer. [Time limit.]

I just want to hark back to one or two of the subjects that I dealt with this morning. The first is the question of levies. I want to understand the hon. the Minister quite correctly: Did he suggest that he was going to make use of these levies during slump periods?

Yes, seasonal periods.

No, I am not talking about seasonal periods; I am talking about slump periods. I want to say this that we dare not collect money at this stage to try to finance slump periods. We can do it during fluctuating periods, but not during slump periods because slump periods affect the whole of the world markets.

That was precisely what I said.

I just want to remind the hon. the Minister that the bulk of the products which are being supplied on the world markets are products which are subsidized; they are really dumped on those markets and subsidized by the countries where they have that surplus production. So for us to compete with them, as is suggested, is going to be very difficult because our economy is slightly higher than the economy of the countries where we do the dumping. So, in effect, we must expect to lose money. To what extent will the Minister’s Department subsidize those particular surplus products that must be dumped on those markets to relieve the position in this country?

The hon. member for Malmesbury dealt with this question of the capital required for the staffing of farms. Sir, that is an extremely important item because we are faced with this position that the two Departments have worked out very accurately the cost price per acre for the running of certain types of stock. He quoted the figure that has been established for certain parts of the country, and that is R32 per morgen. That includes the cost of the particular animal to be run on that land. So where the carrying capacity is one sheep per acre, including the cost of the animal, it can be done at R32 per acre. What I want to put to the Minister in that respect is that no young farmer in South Africa can establish himself on the land unless he has a father who is financially able to put him on the land. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that this is going to have a serious affect on farming in future. Unless we can establish farmers on the land to follow in the footsteps of those producers who are gradually going out of production we are going to land in a serious state in the future. I want the hon. the Minister to realize that agriculture has lost a certain amount of confidence as far as lending is concerned. Until we are able to re-establish that confidence the future of farming is not so very good. The Minister is now setting up a new Department. May I suggest that he set up a committee or commission to investigate the position. He should have men on that committee or commission who will be able to give him the practical side of the issue. Because without them he will not be able to arrive at a basis on which to finance these young farmers. It requires an enormous amount of money to establish a stock farm to-day, not less than R50,000. That is the cost of establishing a farm with 1,000 head of small stock. That is the minimum that can give a decent living to a farmer. On the basis of cattle, there are other hon. members who will discuss the subject. The hon. member for Paarl wanted to know why land has rocketed. I think land had to rocket when you had increases in prices throughout the world. It was not confined only to South Africa. Land in America has rocketed in the same way as ours. I saw some valuations in the report from the Mealie Control Board Committee that went over there that would astound South Africa, to see the cost of land for mealie production in that part of the world. The figures show that their production per morgen was just about three times the average production in South Africa. I sincerely hope that the hon. Minister will take due note of the urgent necessity to bring about a healthy economy in this particular Department. And I want to put it to him that the method of financing applied during the past few years was not the safest nor the healthiest for the farmers of South Africa.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) discussed a matter which was particularly interesting and I also want to say something about it. Many of his colleagues before him this morning, however, made spectacles of themselves by saying things without knowing what they were saying. That was why we witnessed the spectacle that one member attacked the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing for not having replied to a letter which was written to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. We also had the strange occurrence that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) made strange allegations and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) wanted to make us believe that the reason why there are no United Party seats on the platteland is because of the delimitation. In view of the fact that the whole platteland is National, I wonder how she wants to set about this delimitation? How does she want to demarcate the constituencies so that the United Party can win seats there? Although they have no seats on the platteland, I want to point out that those of them who are still farmers have the right to attend agricultural congresses. If they have attended agricultural congresses in past years they have probably found it a characteristic of our agricultural congresses that there are usually a number of items on the agenda in which the two Ministers of Agriculture and their Departments are thanked for what they have done. I feel that I would be neglecting my duty if I did not associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Groblersdal (Mr. M. J. H. Bekker)—the very serious drought in the north-west is now virtually over—and express my thanks to the hon. the Minister and his Department for the very sympathetic manner in which they have always dealt with representations made to them from those parts during periods of drought and for all the assistance that they have given. We are grateful for the sympathetic way in which they have dealt with our farmers and are still dealing with them now that the drought is over and the farmers are rehabilitating themselves. I want to add that the farmers of South Africa will certainly not be pleased that the Opposition has tried to speak on their behalf and has shown so much ingratitude after the wonderful way in which the Government has proved that it is still the friend of the farmer, particularly in times of emergency and difficulty. But this past drought also further emphasized certain factors of which we were aware, perhaps more than ever before. One of the factors that was further emphasized was the necessity to have fodder available during times of drought. One of the things of which we have become fully aware is the necessity to be able to transport fodder to the drought-stricken areas. I want immediately to thank the hon. the Minister very much indeed for all his assistance; for the rebate on the transport of fodder to the drought-stricken areas and the fact that this also applied to road motor services and even to private transport services in those parts where there are no railway links. This was a great help and I would almost say that it was the most important practical concession because those large parts of the north-west which were stricken by drought for so long have practically no railway links. The hon. the Minister introduced that rebate of which they had never before had the benefit. On behalf of the north-west I want to thank him very much indeed. But we also feel that fodder is not always available in time of drought. That is why we have asked that a survey be made to find out how the available fodder can be stored for use when the drought is at its worst. That is why I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services as well for the manner in which they reacted to this request. An inquiry is being made at the moment in the north-west into the fodder potential in the area and also the manner in which it can be economically processed and how this should be financed. I think that this is our next step in the combating of drought. I make so bold as to say that all that can be done by way of farm planning in the northwest has already been done, and the way in which we managed to combat this drought in the north-west proves that. I feel that we have now reached the next phase in the drought problem and I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the very sympathetic manner in which the two Departments of Agriculture have approached this matter. This is also greatly appreciated by the farmers and I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that he will have the wholehearted co-operation of all the farming bodies and co-operatives in that area in regard to the next step in the combating of drought.

There is another aspect that has made itself felt, particularly during the drought, and that is the aspect of uneconomic farm units. This is a problem that has now become so serious in the north-west that it must be solved. It is a problem that has assumed vast proportions. We know that the problem arose in a very innocent way but before we knew what had happened, we were saddled with a problem. I am grateful that legislation has been introduced by another Minister to take steps in this direction. I want to ask the hon. the Minister with his superior knowledge of the problem, particularly in the north-west but also in other parts of the country, to go into this matter seriously when he has to deal with these things through the State Advances Recoveries Office and through the Land Bank. I am sure that he is very well aware how serious this problem has become both in the northwest and in certain other parts of the country, and I want to ask him to do everything possible to have these uneconomic units consolidated We often talk about the depopulation of the platteland. I contend that in an indirect manner—I would almost say in a direct manner—these uneconomic units are responsible for this depopulation in many cases. We may have two or three farmers who farm on uneconomic units. Instead of its being consolidated into one economic unit, we find that the three units are all sold to a man who has the necessary capital. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister with his knowledge and experience not to stop at a consolidating Bill which creates the necessary machinery but to have an investigation made into every sphere and ensure that those Departments co-operate very closely in order to solve the problem. It is a practical problem that we have to deal with daily. I can give the House the assurance that I have to deal with it daily, and to-day was no exception. We have the cases of people who have been caught up in this problem. They have uneconomic units and because they have been caught up economically, they simply cannot obtain or afford an additional unit. That is why it is necessary for us to make use of all the machinery and organizations at our disposal to assist in solving this problem in South Africa. The necessary means must be made available. This is one of the greatest evils that threatens our agriculture in South Africa to-day. And it is not confined to certain areas. When I think of the great northwest where I come from, I say that this is a problem which one experiences in virtually all parts of the north-west. I am in complete agreement with what was said by the hon. member for King William’s Town—that if a man wants to start farming to-day, he needs a fairly large amount of capital in order to be able to farm economically. That is why I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to give attention to this aspect and to do what he can to make the new legislation as practicable as possible and to apply it in order to assist in solving our problems. [Time limit.]

I want to make use of this opportunity to correct a few statements made by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). She referred to me specifically in her speech and she attacked me in connection with three specific matters. Why she selected me I do not know. But in all three attacks she completely missed the target each time. I want to reply briefly to the three attacks for the sake of the record. In the first place the hon. member for Drakensberg said that the meetings which the two Ministers of Agriculture held in the Free State last year— and she referred specifically to me as though I had confirmed this fact—were meetings by invitation only; in other words, that only Nationalists were admitted to the meetings. I want to say here that that is the most untrue statement that she has ever made and she has made many untrue statements in this House. Nothing of that nature happened. These were public meetings which were open to the public. Those meetings were advertised far and wide and in order to confirm what I say here I want to say that at one of the meetings at which I was present the so-called leader of the United Party in the Free State put certain questions to Ministers in his capacity as a farmer. He and a large number of his followers were present at the meeting. So that accusation of the hon. member for Drakensberg is completely untrue.

You wait until she has gone before attacking her!

Oh no, I asked the Whip, the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst), to call her because I wanted to reply to her. I was not able to enter the debate sooner. But now I want to ask the hon. member to issue this invitation to his whole party and to the hon. member for Drakensberg. I am again going to ask the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing to address a meeting in my constituency this year and if he can find time to do so, I want to ask the Whip to invite the United Party in the Free State to that meeting. They will be welcome because this is the only way in which the United Party supporters in the Free State hear the truth. When the United Party speakers hold meetings in the Free State and the Nationalists do not attend those meetings, they have no audiences. We invite them to our meetings. The same holds good for the other accusations of the hon. member for Drakensberg. She said that I held secret house meetings in my constituency. I want to say that that is also an untruth. It is true that I held report meetings in every branch of my constituency, most of them on farms, but everyone was welcome to attend those meetings. It is precisely because of this fact that things are going so well with the National Party in my constituency. The hon. member accused me further of having said certain things at these secret house meetings in pursuance of what she was supposed to have said in the House and in pursuance of an accusation which she made against me in regard to what I was supposed to have said last year. I just want to say that during a report meeting in my constituency—and she referred specifically to Bultfontein—as far as I can judge from a United Party pamphlet which was distributed there shortly before her arrival (I do not know whether she or the United Party organizer was the inspiration of this distorted United Party pamphlet), but at a meeting at Bultfontein which I addressed and at which the United Party supporters were present and where questions were put to me, they referred amongst other things to what had happened during last year’s agricultural debate here and the United Party supporter who asked the questions did not know quite how to frame his questions. He was ashamed to say to whom he was referring and I had to help him by saying: “I think that you are referring now to Aunt Sannie,” and he agreed. This United Party organizer, a certain Mr. Hanoke, distributed a pamphlet in which he made a certain quotation from Hansard, including an interjection in which I was supposed to have asked: “Do you think that that is humiliating work?”, in pursuance of what the hon. member for Drakensberg had said. That was where he stopped. Just for the purpose of the record I want to make the full quotation here. The part they quote in their pamphlet is as follows [Translation]—

That is what the hon. member for Drakensberg asked and she did the same thing here to-day. On the first occasion I asked by way of interjection—

To which she replied—

These were the words of the hon. member for Drakensberg. Then the hon. the Minister said—

To which the hon. member for Drakensberg replied—

Then the hon. member sat down to give me an opportunity to put a question to her. I put this question to her—

Remember, she had just said so! She then said—

Then I said to the hon. member—

To which she replied—

From what I have just quoted to you you will see that it was she who had just said that previously. This merely shows that the hon. member tries to make political capital out of the agricultural debates simply because that party has nothing constructive to offer, with the exception of one hon. member who spoke today to whom I shall refer just now. I really think that this debate was a triumph for the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing because of the fact that no criticism at all was passed of the policy that he is following. There was one exception and I want to congratulate the hon. member in this regard. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) said that research must be done in connection with marketing as far as the Egg Control Board is concerned, and he said that new markets must be found. I want to refer him to the Report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, who has this to say on page 2 of his report—

This is precisely what has been advocated by the hon. member. His was a constructive suggestion but from this report it is clear that this was already being done by the Egg Control Board before he mentioned it.

Hon. members opposite have stated in the past, and to-day as well, that they are tired of hon. members on this side and people outside saying that the farmers should farm in a better fashion, that they should produce more, that they should farm more efficiently and that they should produce more cheaply. If it is such a terrible thing for an appeal to be made to the farmers to farm more efficiently, what do those hon. members actually want? Do they not also want efficiency in the sphere of agriculture just as in all other spheres? After all that is the only way in which one can meet foreign competition. If our farmers do not keep pace with and adapt themselves to world conditions and if they do not farm more efficiently, it is obvious that they will fall behind the industry in other parts of the world. It is necessary for the Department and the Minister and all who are really interested in the industry to urge our farmers continually to be more efficient. This is also in their own interests. This is the only way in which they can raise their profit margin. Hon. members have said that things are going so badly with the farmers. [Time limit.]

I feel obliged to correct a charge which has been levelled by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) at my colleague, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee). I was not in the House but I gather that she said that during a visit of his to the constituency of Marico, when he held a series of meetings there, the public appealed to me after his departure never again to ask him to visit the district to hold meetings. That is not true; she has sucked that out of her thumb. At three well attended meetings the public listened with interest to and appreciated the speeches of the hon. member and they also told me that the hon. member would again be welcome in Marico. I do not know where the hon. member for Drakensberg gets her information from. She must have sucked it out of her thumb.

The agricultural industry is one of the most important economic branches in our country and I, together with other representatives of platteland constituencies, am very proud to know that there are 118,000 active farmers in the agricultural industry who provide the country with its most elementary needs and who ensure that there is food in the larder. These 118,000 farmers represent 10 per cent of the Whites who are actively engaged in the economy of our country. They own 106,000 farms comprising 83,000,000 morgen of land plus 25,000,000 morgen which are farmed by tenant farmers and share croppers. This land is valued at R3,400,000,000 and the farmers have invested no less than R4,521,000,000 in that land. When we add that together it amounts to R7,921,000,000—excluding the immovable property and movable property—and when we think of it that the farming community has liabilities to the value of R395,000,000 we find that they are solvent to the tune of R7,526,000,000 which proves that the farming population controls an appreciable part of the economic structure of the country and are consequently good businessmen as well. I have data here which show that of the institutions which give credit against mortgage bonds farmers, including retiring farmers, are responsible for 18.6 per cent. That is higher than the figure in respect of insurance companies which invest only 17.5 per cent and the Land Bank with 14.5 per cent and other institutions which invested less. That shows you, Sir, what our farmers are also achieving in that field. We are proud of the fact that those 118,000 farmers have been successful in contributing 10.4 per cent to the gross national income, as the hon. member for Groblersdal said a moment ago, which means an amount of R846,700,000 and that represents an increase of 37 per cent since 1952. If we compare that with the increase in the agricultural production of other countries in the post-war period, we find that this is 50 per cent higher than in the case of Western Europe and approximately 25 per cent higher than in the case of North America. If this phenomenal development could take place in a country like South Africa with its uncertain and unfavourable climatic conditions, it says a great deal for courage and ingenuity and power of perseverance of the South African farmer. It also says a great deal for their ability to apply those effective farming methods which has enabled them to produce more per smaller unit to produce more maize, wheat, etc., per morgen, to make better use of technical guidance in circumstances which are totally different from those in Europe. In South Africa farmers go in mainly for extensive farming which makes it much more difficult to achieve that high production on smaller units than in other countries. This progress is also accompanied by problems. It has meant that more has been produced and that there has been a higher percentage of production as far as agricultural products are concerned than the increase in the growth of the population and that more has been produced particularly as far as certain agricultural products are concerned than can be consumed locally. Production has exceeded local consumption. I have in mind products such as wines, maize, citrus, cheese and eggs, etc. The production has exceeded the consumption in our own country. That means that one of our great problems is the disposal and export of those products, their distribution on the local market and their exportation at competitively low prices overseas. Our most important problem is the high costs of production. Over the last ten years there has been a tremendous rise of over 50 per cent in the price of land; in the maize area it was from 42 per cent to 72 per cent; in the wheat area from 9 per cent to 13 per cent; in the cattle area the increase was from 41 per cent to 89 per cent and in the sheep area from 36 per cent to 51 per cent. That represents an average increase of approximately 56 per cent. Then you have the increase in farming implements of approximately 12 per cent and the increase in wages which the farmer has to pay, of approximately 24 per cent. The general average increase was approximately 20 per cent to 30 per cent over the past ten years while there was a decrease in the prices obtained for the products. If all these factors are taken into account we realize what we as farmers actually require from the Minister, namely, that in so far as marketing is concerned, the Government should really assist us and see to it that the most modern methods of distributing the farmers’ products right up to retail trade and the consumer are applied, and that the most modern methods of packing should always be studied so that the product can reach the consumer in the most attractive form as is the case in the retail trade as far as textile goods and other articles are concerned so that the product can be marketed profitably. The product must be advertised in such a way that the public is actually tempted to buy something which they do not perhaps even need. That is what we need as far as local marketing is concerned and that also applies to our exports overseas. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister replied before lunch, he did not reply to one of the specific attacks that hon. members on this side made on him in relation to agricultural prices. We dealt specifically with dairy products, and also with other products, particularly in relation to the cost of production. We gave him chapter and verse. I pointed out the shortage of milk in Natal to-day and I quoted what the M.O.H. of Durban said, and what the Secretary of the Producers’ Union said. Others quoted what the Natal Agricultural Union said, but he did not reply to one of those charges. Sir, we are not dealing with this on a political basis, but as a matter of economics. You cannot go on producing at a loss. Then he wonders why there is a tremendous reduction in production and why we are now importing cheese and condensed milk. I dealt with the figures supplied by his own Department ever since 1958 to this year. There was only one figure I had not got to when my time elapsed, and that was the question of the retail price of milk in the controlled area in Natal, where the only change in the retail price of milk upward has been a small charge allowed on fresh milk, and that was in the retail price to cover the extra distribution cost fixed by a wage determination made on behalf of those engaged in milk distribution. But the extra wage costs of the producer have not been taken into account at all. To-day we are all paying higher wages because we have to compete with commerce and industry, and with the policies of this Government we will be more and more in competition with commerce and industry due to the standard of living of the non-Whites going up throughout the country, and if we wish to retain our labour we will have to pay higher wages, but the Minister is not prepared to take that cost into consideration when determining the cost of production. The Government on the one hand says to all producers who engage labour that they hope they will put up wages. The Railways, the largest employer, did not put up wages to any extent, but we are asked to do it, and when we do we are not allowed to include it in our costs, but commerce and industry can allow for it in their charges for whatever they produce. The farmer who produces industrial milk actually had a reduction of 2c per lb. of butterfat, and more or less a similar equivalent was worked out per 100 lbs. of industrial milk during the last two years, although his fodder and labour costs have increased. When we listened to the Minister, the way he dealt with the whole question of the cost of production, we begin to realize why during the recess in the Free State the farmers, not on political lines but purely on the question of agricultural economics, felt that they had no confidence in this Minister. But listening to the Minister and then in due course to the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg, who tried to defend him, and tried to make out that the farmers were making a good living to-day, why is it that this Minister and the Minister of Finance and other Ministers boast that this Government is such a fine farmers’ Government and why do they make all these millions of rand available in loans to the farmers, to save them from going insolvent? It is because the prices are completely uneconomic. Those who rely on overseas markets, except perhaps for wattle to-day where we are having competition from quebracho, the fruit farmers and others who rely on their own marketing efforts are doing well, but those who have to rely on the Minister and the control boards are all suffering because this Minister fixed the prices at an uneconomic level, and he is using the Marketing Act not to protect the farmers, but he is prostituting the Act to keep our prices down. He must either subsidize the cost of production or subsidize the consumer so that the farmer can make a decent living.

In his reply to me the hon. the Minister asked me whether I had not recommended doing away with quotas, and would I recommend doing away with fresh milk quotas in the Durban area, because there is a shortage of milk. I want to deal with this very fully. I want to ask the Minister whether he would recommend doing away with quotas in the Durban market or any other fresh milk market like Johannesburg or Cape Town?

I did not say the price was too low. You did.

Of course it is too low. The very fact that 127 producers of milk supplying Durban have gone out of business is to my mind sufficient evidence that they cannot produce at this price, and to-day there is a shortage of 1,000 gallons a day in Durban alone, whereas in other years there were surpluses, which shows that the price fixed by this Minister is uneconomic. [Interjections.] If the Minister knows anything about it—and I do not think he is a suitable man to control the milk market and the prices to the consumers; he does not seem to know anything about it judging from the way he has fixed the price of milk—he should know that the whole basis of getting a satisfactory milk supply all the year round is a quota price for a regular supply, i.e. for those supplying the market with a certain quantity every day all the year round; and the surplus price is paid when there is a surplus of milk. But when there is a shortage, the surplus falls away, and on that surplus milk the people who produce the surplus milk which is used in the time of shortage earn a higher quota in the ensuing year. That is how it operates, and if the Minister does not know that it is time he did his homework. It is quite impossible to stabilize the milk market without a quota. [Time limit.]

I want to refer to a few aspects of the maize marketing system. The one-channel system of marketing was introduced in 1944 when we were experiencing shortages in contrast to the period of surpluses that we are now experiencing. But in spite of that it was found necessary to retain this one-channel system of marketing. This system has certain unfavourable results. Firsly, there is a uniform price for maize throughout the country. This means that the producer who is close to the market in actual fact subsidizes the producer who is some distance away from the market, and it is also an encouragement to produce maize in regions which are perhaps less suitable for that purpose. The fixed margin of profit which is enforced by the one-channel system is an average one, an inflexible one, and at the moment we need a more flexible system. There are also the administrative expenses connected with this system which are adversely affecting us at present. The crux of the whole matter from the farmers’ point of view is that the present price control measures are not the most suitable measures to effect a fair distribution of personal income amongst the maize farmers. It is becoming clear that we will not be able to continue in this way for very much longer and that we will have to consider determining price differences on a regional basis as well. We will have to inquire into the position. I know that many problems are inherent in this system and that an investigation of this nature will bring many problems to light, but it is necessary for us to start thinking along the lines of price determination on a regional basis. I am making an appeal here particularly for the Eastern Transvaal which at the moment is being penalized more than any other region under the present system. Time will not permit me to discuss this matter fully but the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that the price determination of maize at the moment is most unfavourable to the Eastern Transvaal. Let us come back to the question of an average price for the country. This we find is to the detriment of certain areas, and particularly the Eastern Transvaal. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister of Information says that it is favourable to other areas but we want to have a fair regional distribution so that one man does not feel that he is subsidizing another who may perhaps be farming in a less favourable region.

I want to make another point in this regard and that is that the position of the production areas in relation to the harbours from which we export about half of our production today must also be considered and that we must also investigate the matter to try to effect a fair basis of distribution in this respect as well. There is also the aspect of distribution which I feel should be investigated and our aim ought to be to keep the costs as low as possible when this regional division takes place, and to eliminate handling as far as possible. I am convinced that we can find a better market for our maize locally. The Government has made an effort in this regard by introducing the stock factor into the crop regions, a very well-meant scheme, but unfortunately in practice it has not always appeared to produce the results that has been envisaged in this regard. But I feel that ways and means can be found to supply the feeder of slaughter stock with maize at a low internal price. We must of course bear in mind the economic use of maize in a programme of this nature, and I believe that I can say without fear of contradiction that generally speaking we do not make the best use of maize as a stock feed. When we see this against the price structure for other commodities, I feel that we are not making the best economic use of maize.

In conclusion I want to ask the hon. the Minister to have a thorough investigation made into a system, firstly, of regional prices, but also to go further and to work out the implications and give us an opportunity to consider the application of a system of guaranteed adjusted minimum prices, floor prices, on a regional basis for our maize. I know that there are implications and dangers in this connection but I do not think that we have the necessary information at our disposal to be able to pass judgment and draw a comparison between the present one-channel system and a system of adjusted minimum regional prices.

We have heard a great deal from hon. members on that side who have said that they are not opposed to the Marketing Act, but I think that everyone on this side realizes that they are opposed to it.

Nonsense!

In all cases they have been opposed to the decisions of the various boards. The Marketing Act has given us stability in this country. It has established boards for each branch of farming, boards which control their own affairs and bring about stability. If we had not had the Marketing Act, the farmers would have been ruined. Some of them say that the United Party was responsible for that Act. Well, it was passed under the policy of General Hertzog and General Smuts, the same man whose downfall they caused. But what did they do? What then happened? On 4 September they introduced emergency regulations and they shelved the whole of the Marketing Act. Everything was done by means of emergency regulations. Our wool was sold by means of emergency regulations. Our meat market was controlled by emergency regulations. They even went so far as to close down the agricultural college at Grootfontein. That is what the United Party did. Let us take the case of wool. If we consider the great losses that the farmers suffered under their system we know why it was that the wool farmers received the small sum of £10,000,000 for their entire wool clip. The next year the amount was again £10,000,000. It was after this side of the House proved that this United Party scheme was completely hopeless that General Smuts went north and got us a 15 per cent increase when Australia only got 10 per cent, but all this came from the National Party. What have we done since we did away with that control system of theirs? The lowest price that we have ever got for our wool since the National Party came into power has been £36,000,000 as against £16,000,000 which was the highest that the wool farmers received under United Party Government, towards the end of the war. These are the people who want the wool farmers to believe them. All our sheep were slaughtered because they were commandeered. They commandeered the farmers’ sheep at Cradock at 7½d. per lb. and the best lamb went for 9d. per lb. They also fixed the price of maize at 19s. 3d. There was no basis at all. The highest price that we ever got was 21s. Then it came down again to 19s. The maize farmers produced more than we needed and what did that United Party Government do? They exported that maize and they took £5,000,000 out of the pockets of the farmers and paid it into the Treasury. After the National Party came into power Minister Havenga repaid £2,000,000 into the reserve fund and since that time the maize farmers have flourished. Just think of what the crop was at that time and compare it with the present crop of 17,000,000 bags! These are the people who think that they can go back to the platteland, but the public remember them very well. The Strauss scheme brought them to where they are and that is why they will stay there. They all had to leave the platteland and go to the cities and now they want to return to the platteland, but they can forget about that. I want to say that there are only two problems experienced by the farmers in South Africa. Prices are quite stable and everything is worked out on a sound system, a system that has been worked out by experts and is administered by efficient boards and a sympathetic Minister. But there are a further two points. Those prices are quite adequate but there are two factors that we cannot control and that we must try to control. The one factor is drought and the other is uneconomic holdings. This good Government is trying to find solutions to these two problems. The Orange River scheme is being tackled. Where farmers are farming on uneconomic holdings they are being given economic holdings. We will ensure that the small-scale farmer does not go to the cities. The small-scale farmer will be saved. The son of the farmer who went to the cities under the United Party Government will also be saved. We will see that he is given an economic holding to farm. If we can solve these two problems, and they are going to be solved, South Africa will have an excellent future.

I want to say a few words about meat. We think that the meat scheme can perhaps be improved. The hon. the Minister has appointed two commissions. The first was a departmental commission and the other was the Abattoir Commission. I am convinced that when the new scheme comes into operation that scheme will work very well indeed. We will know how much we need throughout the country and how much we can export. That is why I am convinced that the farmers are safe in the hands of this Government and they will always be safe there. There are not many farmers who are poor Whites to-day. The people in my part of the country are very grateful to the Government. Just think of what it has done by buying up the uneconomic holdings in the Fish River Valley and by placing those people on economic holdings. It is a sympathetic Government that does this sort of thing. I want to ask whether hon. members opposite have made any constructive suggestions to-day? Everything that they have suggested has been aimed at destroying the Marketing Act. They have made wild statements and have gossiped about the hon. the Minister, but the farmers know them well. We will never take them back. They talk about the Free Staters but when one talks with those Free Staters and asks them to vote for the United Party they say that they will never do so. Not only this, but their Bantu policy is so pathetic that a farmer will not even listen to them. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Cradock and Namaqualand have made a great fuss of the debt of gratitude which the farmers owe to the Government. The hon. member for Namaqualand in particular has told us how the farmers thank the Government at agricultural congresses. Sir, the farmers are courteous and hospitable people, but I do not think the hon. member should confuse the farmers’ courtesy and hospitality with satisfaction.

In a debate such as this the limelight usually falls on the farmers and their interests, but I do feel that a debate of this kind would be unbalanced unless attention was given to the interests of the consumers. Between the consumer and the farmer there exists the old unbreakable bond of need, and since the Minister is charged with the responsibility for the marketing of agricultural products it is his duty to see to it that that need is met in such a way that both the farmer and the consumer are served in the best possible way.

I do not want to talk about the farmer as such at all because I know too little about farming, but I want to talk about the consumer. I do not want to talk about the consumer in general nor do I want to talk about the consumer in the rural areas because there are great differences between the rural consumer and the urban consumer in respect of particular products. I want to confine myself exclusively therefore to the urban consumer.

There are large numbers of factors in the marketing process which I simply cannot understand and which thousands of other people are unable to understand. When one talks to the farmer he continually complains that his prices are not high enough, and anybody who has listened to this debate objectively to-day will have come to the conclusion that in many respects the farmer as such has a good case when he complains about his price structure. As consumers we are also told that the prices paid to the farmer vary; we are also told that there is a big gap between the prices received by the farmer for his products and the prices which we as consumers have to pay on the markets. When we talk to the middleman about this matter he tells us that the farmer is the guilty party; when we talk to the farmer he either tells us that we as consumers refuse to pay or that it is the middleman’s fault. We as consumers do not know where the difficulty lies but what we do know is that however much the farmer’s prices may vary, whether they are high one week as in the case of meat, and low the following week, there is always one stable price to the consumer, and usually a fairly high price.

It is the Government’s fault.

The consumer also believes—he may be mistaken; I do not think that this matter has ever been determined scientifically—the consumer believes that if he is able to buy agricultural products at a reasonable price (and I am going to mention specific examples later on) he will be in a position to remove larger quantities of those products from the market and in that way possibly help to solve this impossible problem of surpluses.

We have heard a great deal here to-day about dairy products. I believe that the farmer’s price for milk is about 18c per gallon. In the cities we are paying 40c per gallon every day.

Then you know where the fault lies.

It would be easy to blame the middleman, but I wonder whether the hon. member is quite right.

No, I did not put it that way.

He blames the Minister.

What the hon. member is really trying to indicate is that the fault does not lie with the consumer or the farmer but that it really lies with the middleman.

No.

Does the fault lie with the Minister then?

On a point of personal explanation…

No, the hon. member can explain later on what he meant. If he did not mean that the fault lay with the farmer or with the consumer, he will certainly not put the blame on the hon. Minister, but after all the fault must lie somewhere.

It lies with the cost of distribution.

Take the case of meat. I happened to be paging through the Landbou Weekblad the other day and I looked at the weekly market prices. There one finds that within one week, in respect of the same grade of meat, the price of meat varied in the large urban centres from 16c per pound to 24c per pound—a price variation of 8c per pound within one week for the same grade of meat.

Which week was it?

I will gladly show the hon. member this particular issue of the Landbou Weekblad. I think the figure was 16c in the one case and 23 point something in the other case.

In which market?

If the hon. member had listened he would have heard that I was referring to the large urban markets. The price to the consumer, on the other hand, remains absolutely constant; there is no variation there; he pays 25c or 27c for the poor type of mutton and for a nice piece of mutton he pays as much as 40c. Where does the difference come in? It is out of all proportion. If one has the money to buy a nice leg of mutton and one has to pay 40c, one is simply paying through the neck. Mr. Chairman, I feel unhappy. I believe that it would be a mistake to try to play the consumer off against the producer because I believe that the producer in South Africa not only fulfils a very essential task in our economic structure, but I also believe that he earns his money in a very hard way.

Grapes, to deal with fruit for a moment, cost 10c or 12c per pound at the beginning of the season, that is to say R200 per ton of grapes. I personally know from my own experience that if a grape producer gets R40 per ton, he throws his hat into the air. Even in the middle of the season I still pay 5c per lb. or R100 per ton! Compare that with the farmer’s R40. Sir, something ought to be done about this enormous gap between the prices which the farmers receive and the prices which the consumers have to pay. I feel that a great deal can be done to eliminate this impossible situation perhaps by instituting a proper inquiry into the system of distribution. I am one of those people who believe, perhaps mistakenly, that no nation has the right to export its food, for example—let alone to subsidize the export of food—unless it has first seen to it that the food requirements of every citizen of the State have been fully met and unless it ensures that its people are able to afford the prices of agricultural produce. I feel that these things should be properly gone into by instituting an inquiry into the system of distribution. I make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister with all due deference.

The hon. member who has just sat down raised a point in connection with the meat price. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) also referred to meat prices. Unfortunately, that hon. member only referred to meat prices generally; he did not say whether he was referring to beef prices or to mutton prices.

I was speaking about mutton.

Do you not know what a leg of mutton is?

I will come to the hon. member for Maitland; the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) did not make his point clear and in passing I want to tell him that the floor price for mutton has been raised a few times over the past few years, because it had to be adjusted as a result of the average basic selling price. Then for the third time prices were raised again through the medium of a few adjustments that were made in regard to the various grades. There has been a gradual rise in the price of mutton.

I did not discuss that.

Yes, the hon. member spoke about the meat price. But it is not my intention to devote much time to the hon. member because all he did was to make a number of statements without giving details.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Maitland and I want to say immediately that a general complaint is that the difference between the price that the producer receives and the price that the consumer has to pay as far as certain grades are concerned is too big. But what is the true position? I am pleased that the hon. member did not adopt a specific attitude; he asked for an investigation. The argument that the buyer always uses is that he buys at a basic floor price which fluctuates to a very large extent from day to day, perhaps in regard to the same grade of meat. I do not know whether the hon. member actually said that this was the case in regard to the same grade of meat.

First grade.

There are two kinds of first grade meat. There is the fat-tail type and the non-fat-tail type. If the fat-tail type is too fatty it is downgraded to 8c and nobody can complain about that. Farmers who send that sort of meat to the market are people who have not followed the guidance given to them through the medium of research. I myself have sent that sort of meat to market but it has been so fatty that nobody could eat it. I am not complaining about it because I breed sheep for the karakul market—the fat-tail type. I make up the price with my ewes. If the hon. member goes to my constituency, Gordonia, he will find ample proof of what I am saying. It is the farmer’s own fault if he receives a low price when he sends that sort of sheep to market. It is because he has not wanted to follow the guidance given to him by means of research; he has not marketed the usual mutton-breed. As far as the extraordinarily high price is concerned it is clear to us that there is a gap somewhere. I agree with the hon. member that this complaint can be investigated to see whether it is well-founded. The butchers contend that this gap is not so great. The meat is auctioned on the hook and it may appear that the difference between the producer price and the consumer price is very marked because the distributor may buy a particular grade of meat on one market at a somewhat lower price than he may have to pay for the same meat on the next day. On one day he may pay 19c and on the next day he may pay 25c but that difference is to the advantage of the farmer. That play is there all the time and it is allowed to remain in order to stimulate the market in favour of the producer.

But never the consumer.

The consumer will always pay that price as things stand now. It has not yet been proved that the distributor receives too high a price in all the controlled areas. I agree with the hon. member that this is a matter that can be investigated. He did not try to be clever; he merely asked that the matter should be investigated.

I want to raise another matter briefly in passing because there have been so many complaints about how badly things are going with the farmers. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in my constituency the prices of farming products are higher than they have ever been before in the history of Gordonia. Prices generally are high. The price of mohair is high: the market for skins is good; the price of dried fruit is high; the price of sultanas is high. Lucerne is being sold at top prices, meat prices are high and cotton prices are being maintained on a high level through the medium of the State. No farmer in my constituency need complain about the prices that he receives for any of his products. Where farmers are still struggling and have struggled this is and has been due to drought. It is due to drought and nothing less than drought. I want to associate myself with the words of appreciation of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree) to the State for the assistance given to the farmers during periods of drought. If there is a constituency in which the farmers are always complaining, like the constituency of Port Elizabeth (West), that then is the fault of the representative that they have sent to this House. The hon. member should take a look at himself. We should not only look to the hon. the Minister; we should look to the representative of the constituency as well because the State is not sympathetically disposed towards the north-west alone or towards my constituency and not towards the constituency of any other member.

I want to say a few words in connection with wheat prices, a point that was also raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West). He lost sight of one fact completely. I do not resent this fact because I know that he is a cattle farmer. He was discussing something that he did not know much about. What I do resent is the fact that he raised the matter here before he had acquainted himself with the facts. The point that the hon. member has overlooked is that the price of wheat is determined over an average period of five years. If setbacks do come and adjustments have to be made, this determination is made over a period of three years. That is the first point that he overlooked. The hon. member attacked the hon. the Minister, but who determines those prices? The Business Committee of the Winter Wheat Area which consists of 11 directors of Sasko, plus the two representatives of the Free State appointed by the South African Agricultural Union, plus another one from the Transvaal, deals with this question of production costs, entrepreneurs’ wages, and so forth, and there is the Wheat Commission that is composed of representatives of the Wheat Board plus a representative (the Chairman of the Business Committee) of the Winter Wheat Area and other representatives from the Free State, the Cape and the Transvaal. They, together with the Division of Economics and Markets, determine the price. The producer price that is paid to-day is accepted by the representatives of the producers. I just wanted to put this point to the hon. member. Not that I am in complete agreement with the representatives of the producers; not at all; but if he had had more knowledge of the matter he would have raised certain aspects which we could have argued about on common grounds. Unfortunately the hon. member could not discuss all the ramifications of the price structure because he does not have a knowledge of them and that is the reason why we get nowhere in a debate such as this. It is such a pity. That is why we do not make any progress in a debate such as this although we have practical experience of all these things. We simply cannot get past certain points. [Time limit.]

When one listens to the hon. member who has just sat down one can only believe that the farmers of Gordonia have never been in such a good position as they are to-day. However, I want to refer to the Minister’s reply on a subject which I raised this morning, and I must say that I am very distressed indeed by the attitude which the Minister took up. I can, of course, appreciate the fact that it is not this Minister alone who has to deal with this weighty subject; it is the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, his colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and the Minister of Economics who have to deal with it and it always seems to be very difficult to pin anything down definitely because of the fact that we are dealing here with three Ministers. I feel that if the producers themselves were taken into the Government’s confidence and if they realized what the position was with regard to the big expense that they have had to face in connection with their grain bags and their wool packs there would be an outcry in the country, and I sincerely hope that before we meet here next year, this position will be clarified in such a way that these extra burdens carried by the producers will have disappeared. I think it will bear repetition that the grain farmers are bearing a burden of about R3,000,000 every year in the case of grain bags and in the case of wool packs about R300,000 to R350,000 a year. Those are enormous figures which we cannot pass over lightly. Sir, I look to the Minister first because I feel that if he digs in his toes he must achieve some results. He occupies that position and we have to look to him to try to save the situation.

The Minister also made some reference to the matter raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren), and that is the question of all the levies and the reserves built up over the years by the control boards. I do believe, as the hon. member for King William’s Town rightly said, that it represents an amount of R100,000,000. However, I want to deal with one specific commodity and that is wool. Here the position is very clear and easy to calculate. Our wool clip comprises plus-minus 1,000,000 bales, 300,000,000 lbs. of wool, and it is quite simple to see what the producer pays because he pays R3,000,000 per annum. In the old currency, 30s. per bale. Well, to me it has always been a frightening sum and it still is; it is more frightening as we go on from year to year in view of the fact that we have already built up in this one fund which we call our Wool Stabilization Fund an amount of plusminus R25,000,000. Added each year to this R25,000,000 is a sum of R1,200,000. That alone goes to show how fast this fund is being built up. I want to submit at this stage that if there was no market, but if the price was fixed, then with the sum of money which they have in reserve to-day, they could comfortably buy up the entire wool clip. I think it is as well to remember that this investment of the Wool Commission, which, of course, is your Stabilization Fund is distributed as follows: About R8,000,000 is invested with the Public Debt Commissioners, R12,850,000 with the Land and Agricultural Bank and R2,362,000 with banks and other institutions, and a small amount in property. But the interest alone on the present investment is R1,200,000, which is an enormous amount of money. The interest alone is sufficient to meet all your expenses, and yet we are told to-day by the Minister that the Wool Board requires more money for development. They already get R1,800,000 from the producer each year. I wonder if the Minister realizes what empires are being built up. Does he realize that the more money these people get the bigger they are going to develop?

Parkinson’s Law.

They will eventually have such an empire that this amount will be doubled. I do want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the time has arrived when the Minister should use his power to suspend the levy. I am not saying that he should withdraw it, but that he should suspend it then he can always reintroduce it. It means that he would put into circulation amongst the farming community R1,200,000 a year. Just imagine what a stimulus that would be. Sir, I have not been able to make up my mind whether members on that side say that the farmers are well-off or badly off; it is a sort of ding-dong battle. Those who are well-off apparently sit here, but when I get outside this House I find the position very different. I mean, we are not all in the same position as the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. H. F. Bekker) who has to shear 300 to 400 bale of wool a year. But it is perfectly clear that if the Minister could allow this R1,200,000 a year to flow into the economy it is going to make a great difference to the country and it is going to relieve the farmer of what I regard as a very unnecessary burden. It is no use referring this matter back to the Wool Board for their decision. The people who are controlling these boards are in very good positions; they are not worried about the small farmer who is probably shearing ten or 15 bales and who, every time he shears, has to make a contribution of R3 on each bale of wool. Quite apart from that, look what he is paying on his wool pack; he is losing 40c on his wool pack; that is another unnecessary expense. I would appeal to the Minister to give this particular matter very earnest consideration and to endeavour to bring about the suspension of this one particular levy until such time as it becomes clear that the fund requires further money.

Mr. Chairman, if you ever needed evidence that the policy followed by the Department was the right one, then you got it to-day, particularly from hon. members opposite, because every one of them who asked that certain things should be done in regard to our marketing has pleaded for matters with which we are already busy dealing. If only they had read the annual report of the secretary, seeing that they are pleading for a campaign to promote the sale of eggs or butter or cheese, they would have seen in that report that this is already being done; they would have seen that the sale of agricultural products is already being promoted by boards, special committees and so forth in order to stimulate the consumption of those products.

The hon. member who has just sat down and who spoke about the wool levy fund has adopted precisely the same standpoint as I have on various occasions, that where one has a stabilization fund and a scheme for the marketing of wool, such a stabilization fund will not be sufficient if one has a market which tends to drop season after season; if one gets a particularly fast drop in the course of a season these funds would not be able to stop it. I said it this afternoon, and the hon. member for King William’s Town referred to it. The fund can only cope with fluctuations in the season. I also said this afternoon that we need much money to advertise wool, because wool is a fibre which has to compete with synthetic fibres. Large sums of money have to be spent in promoting the sales of wool and in advertising. It is necessary to spend much money on advertising, as is done by the International Wool Secretariat. I myself said here to-day that I wonder whether the time has not arrived when we should rather take a smaller proportion of the levy for the stabilization fund and then under the present circumstances use the rest to advertise wool. I just want to point out to the hon. member that the wool levy fund is paid directly by the wool producer; it is not paid by the consumer, but by the producer himself. The wool producer has his organized associations of which he is a member. The Wool Board is composed entirely of representatives of the associations of the wool producer. There are no other people on the Wool Board. The representatives on the Wool Board are all nominated directly by the producers’ associations. The wool grower himself, by means of his associations, asked that that fund should be established for his own protection. The wool producers requested it; they recommended it to the board, and the board advises the Minister. How can the Minister now tell them: “Under no circumstances are we prepared to allow you to build up funds”?

But I want to come to what hon. members said this afternoon more particularly in regard to the dairy industry. We all know that the dairy industry last year found itself in particularly difficult circumstances because of large surpluses. We could not close our eyes to those surpluses; something had to be done in that regard. Now let us just have a look at our export figures. In 1960-1 25,300,000 lb. of butter was exported; in the 1961-2 season almost 15,700,000 lbs. of butter were exported. Our exports of cheese in 1960-I amounted to 7.100.000 lbs., and in 1961-2 to 7,800,000 lbs. These exports are all done at lower prices than the inland price, in other words, at a loss as compared with the price in this country. These losses had to be recouped, and not only that, but these quantities of butter and cheese had to be stored. Storage costs constitute a tremendously important factor as far as this sort of product is concerned. The Government, in consultation with the Dairy Board, decided that a situation was developing which we could not allow to continue, because the export market is not such that one can continue to suffer such losses and then to recoup them by means of the interior prices. Steps necessarily had to be taken, and steps were in fact taken. There was a reduction in the price of industrial milk and of butterfat, but the Government also contributed its share towards that. Because it is an important industry, the Government said: We cannot allow our dairy industry to go under in the face of this threat, and therefore the Government put an extra subsidy on butter production. The subsidy on butter for 1962-3 alone was R4,600,000.

And what was the sacrifice that the farmer made?

The sacrifice made by the farmer was precisely the same as the amount contributed by the Government. The farmer received 2½c less for his butter and the Government contributed 2½c from the taxpayers’ money in the form of a subsidy. To allege that the Government has no sympathy with the farmers is nonsense. Circumstances have changed for many reasons. They have changed because a reduction in the price has led to a greater consumption of butter in the country. They have also changed because of the advertising campaign which has led to a greater consumption of cheese. Circumstances also changed for other reasons. Our climatic conditions were such that production fell tremendously. Just take South West Africa, Under normal circumstances South West produces 6,000,000 to 7,000,000 lbs of butter, but for the year concerned it only produced about 2,000,000 lbs. I am not even talking about the other parts of the country. Of course when circumstances change and the supplies warrant it, it is obvious that one can reconsider the price and again meet the producer. Hon. members know that that happens. We saw what happened last year in the case of mealies. When there was a surplus of mealies, and because the price in the previous year did not lead to a sufficient contribution to the stabilization fund, someone had to pay for the export losses, with the result that the levy on maize was increased, resulting in a fall in price. But circumstances this year have changed to such an extent that it is not necessary to impose the same high levy. We did not then say that the price should be reduced to its present level; we said that they must just take what they needed to cover the export losses and no more. It is for that simple reason that the farmer this year gets more for his maize. To allege that the Department and the boards are there only to try to reduce the prices of the farmer is surely the greatest nonsense in the world. We must be realistic. If circumstances occur which make it necessary to take certain steps, then those steps must be taken. We can take those steps in two or three ways. We can let the producer alone contribute, or we can let the consumer in South Africa contribute to such an extent that the interior consumption is reduced, or we can let the taxpayers contribute. But now the Government takes the wise step of asking all three of these groups to make their contributions. If the producer then also has to make a contribution, he must do so because it is really his product which has to compete in the foreign market.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) had much to say about wheat prices. He alleged that wheat prices were reduced because there is no cost basis which can be accepted by the Minister. But that is not true.

I quoted it here.

The fact is that in 1947-8 a survey of costs for the wheat industry was made. That cost survey was used for 12 years as the basis on which floor prices were fixed. The wheat producer himself, and not I nor the Department, repeatedly, from time to time, at conferences and congresses asked for a new cost survey. On three occasions the Wheat Board decided to recommend to the Minister to have a new cost survey made. I told them on various occasions, because I myself am a wheat farmer and I knew it, that a new cost survey would indicate that the production costs were reduced. But they asked for it and it was done, and it did show a reduction in production costs as compared with the 1948 survey. The wheat farmers held conferences and this new survey was put to them. They accepted this new survey, although the Marketing Board felt that some prices in the new survey were put too high, such as e.g., the price of lamb. In spite of the fact that the Marketing Board considered that the price of lamb was calculated at too high a figure, I was also prepared to accept it as it was and to stand by the wheat farmers in that respect. That had the effect that there was a reduction in prices because it was found that in the past the costs were calculated at too high a figure if the entrepreneur’s wage remained the same. In this price fixation the entrepreneur’s wage was also increased as compared with what it was before. In the past 5 per cent was allowed for interest on certain items, and here 6 per cent was allowed for the same items, which amounted to an increase of almost 4c per bag. Over and above that, another 2c were allowed above the cost. Now the hon. member says we should have a basis.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? In 1961-2 the Minister granted an increase of 7fc because production costs had increased. Was the new cost survey in use already then? Why reduce the price again in 1962-3 by 12c and ascribe it to a reduction in the production costs?

I have just explained to the hon. member that a new cost survey was made. The former increase in cost was in terms of the old survey made in 1948. The new survey came into use last year. Does the hon. member understand it now? The new prices are based on the new survey. On the basis of the new survey, which was accepted by the farmers, the entrepreneur’s wage is 6c higher than in the past. The hon. member should bear in mind that the price for wheat is a price fixed in advance. The price which is now being fixed is not in respect of last year’s crop. How does the hon. member know what the coming crop will be like? The hon. member advanced the argument that the Minister is waiting until the wheat farms are first producing before he fixes the price. This is the only product in South Africa the price of which is announced in advance. All the other prices are announced at harvesting time. Does the hon. member now want us to wait until harvesting time, and if it is a bad crop we must tell the people that they will get more? The hon. member knows that this survey is taken over five years and the production also over five years.

Hon. members referred to the various methods which should be applied to stimulate the internal consumption of our products. If I have to reply to all the questions put by hon. members, it will take me the whole afternoon to do so, but I just want to refer them to the report of the secretary. There they will see what schemes have been put into operation to promote the consumption of these products. Hon. members should bear in mind that in so far as the promotion of the consumption of agricultural products is concerned, one cannot just make a wild statement and say that if the Natives eat one egg per day, so many more eggs will be consumed. Hon members should remember that food products compete with each other. If one uses more butter, one uses less peanut butter. If one uses more eggs, one consumes less meat, and if one eats more fish one eats less meat. So we have this competition between the various products. It is so easy to say that the Minister and the control boards must see to it that agricultural products are sold and the boards must advertise. But if a board advertises one product, it does in competition with the product of another board. Hon. members should realize that. If meat prices go up too much the people eat more fish. If the price of a certain type of bean becomes too high for the mines, they buy a different type. It is all well and good to advertise, and that is being done, but foodstuffs replace one another. The hon. member said that the consumers should be properly protected. I agree with him The consumer is the most important factor in the farmer’s sales of his products. It is in the interest of the producer that prices should be kept as low as possible for the consumer, so that the consumer will use as much as possible of it. We so often hear that the middleman is the exploiter, but who are really the consumers? All the middlemen are also consumers. All the people who deal with the distribution of a particular type of foodstuff are consumers of that foodstuff. We have of course the problem of the high distribution costs. I have already mentioned in this House that to distribute one pint of milk—and the price of milk is strictly controlled, costs just as much as the farmer gets for that pint of milk. That is in fact one of our problems. Therefore it is also the function of the Department to ensure that research is done in regard to distribution costs. It is not so easy simply to say what the reason is for the high cost, because distribution costs comprise a tremendous number of factors. One of the factors which raises the cost of distribution is the fact that we have speciality shops. Then we have to ask ourselves whether it is in our interest to close those speciality shops and to have larger organizations which supply food. Would that be in the interest of the public? Another thing which increases the cost of distribution is the deliveries the shopkeepers have to make. The consumer cannot go to the shop, with the result that the shopkeeper has to deliver. Now we ask whether it will be in the general interest for shops to remain open later? There are many factors which influence the cost of distribution. One can take the matter to the other extreme and say that people should be allowed to compete with each other at all hours. All those are problems with which we are faced.

Then I want to come back to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood). The hon. member spoke about the fresh milk prices. It seems to me the hon. member did not understand what I said at all. He alleged that it was due to the price policy followed that there is not enough fresh milk in Durban. I then told him that if it can be ascribed to the price policy, then it is surely not necessary to have a quota system there: why must one then protect the farmers by means of the quota system, because if it is not economic they will certainly not produce. I put a simple question to the hon. member. He alleged that the Minister was responsible for the fact that there was not sufficient fresh milk. I asked him whether he was prepared to recommend that the quota system be abolished? Then he told me that I understood nothing about the position, I did not know what was going on there. But that is not the point, Mr. Chairman. There was no tampering with the price of fresh milk.

I gave you a complete reply.

If the price of fresh milk is too low, I again ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to say that the quota system should be abolished? If your production is too low, why limit it by means of quotas?

The hon. member for Malmesbury referred to the question of land prices. Other hon. members also referred to it. If there is one factor which raises our production costs, it is land prices. I have already said on various occasions that I think land prices are much too high in South Africa. But it is impracticable for the Government to step in and to determine the price of land. Because one allows the farmer the liberty of paying what he likes for land, the Government cannot be expected under all circumstances to keep all the farmers on the platteland. If a farmer is prepared on his own initiative to make an uneconomic investment, he cannot expect the State to save him and to keep him on the land. If he can stay there on his own initiative, well and good, but he cannot expect the State to undertake the function of keeping him there. Secondly, he cannot expect the State to fix prices at such a level that he can produce economically under all circumstances on land for which he has paid an uneconomic price. I think it is very essential for our farmers, when buying land, to take into account more carefully the investment they are making. Until about 15 or 20 years ago the main investment in agriculture for production purposes was the price of land, but to-day, with mechanization, one needs a much greater investment.

The hon. member for Kuruman also referred to the price of butter and milk, in regard to which I have already explained what the position is. The point the hon. member really made was that the price increases according to the butterfat content of the milk. We are all aware of the fact that good cheese is made from milk with a high butterfat content. This difference in price is of course based on certain tests which were made. But I can also see that where the price of milk falls and the difference remains the same, one can then have an imbalance between those prices. I think one can only solve this problem by investigating what the position is and what the experience of the factories is.

The hon. member for North-East Rand spoke about the poultry farmers. He did not say much more than to refer to advertising, to which I have already referred. I want to point out to the hon. member that poultry in particular is one of the products which can be produced so economically to-day that it can compete with mutton. It is one of the articles which competes with other articles of foodstuff, as I said a moment ago. That is also one of the reasons why one cannot just fix any price for a product, because one has to bear in mind the competitive product. The hon. member for Turffontein made the accusation that the Department does nothing to encourage farmers to produce products other than maize. The hon. member is talking the greatest nonsense in the world. The farmers are being advised all the time to produce wool and meat and other products. The Department has gone out of its way to prove to farmers that it is more economic to produce silage than to produce maize under certain circumstances, because silage can be fed to their stock. The hon. member also referred to soya beans. He said that the board had said that they did not control soya beans. But does the hon. member know how a product is controlled under the Marketing Act? The producers of that product must first ask for control. Then investigations are made, and 66 per cent of the producers must ask for it before the product can be controlled. The Minister must be convinced that the majority of the producers want it. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is continually investigating alternative products to see what the farmers can substitute for maize; and not only to replace maize, but also to find a product which is a legume in order to improve the maize lands. The hon. member never wrote to my Department about it. He is under an illusion. He wrote to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services about it, and now he accuses me of not having replied to it. The hon. member should in future address his letters correctly.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have now replied to most of the points raised.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote R.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing”, R200,000, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 39.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing (General),” R37,812,000, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 40.—“State Advances Recoveries Office”, R350,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote H.—“State Advances Recoveries Office”, R5,400,000, put and agreed to.