That the House now proceed to the consideration of private members’ business.

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (a) its truthful, impartial and highly responsible reporting; and
2. (b) its important service to all sections of the South African population by disseminating knowledge and correct information in order to expose falsehoods and counteract malicious influences.

Mr. Speaker, when I gave notice of this motion on the 17th the Opposition laughed. It was a hollow laugh. I asked myself this question: Why do they laugh? I can come to no other conclusion than that the Opposition do not realize that we in South Africa constitute the bastion of Western civilization and that we are being attacked from outside by a flood of malicious propaganda, that we are subject to subtle misrepresentations and false reports from within our own borders which are aimed at creating chaos and to undermine this country without the Opposition realizing that this was happening. Sir, I can well understand why they do not realize that; they are too stupid and that is why they are still sitting in the Opposition benches to-day. Their eyes are closed; they cannot see these things and that is also why they will continue to sit in the Opposition benches.

I maintain that South Africa is indeed the bastion of Western civilization in Africa. I do not think anybody in his right mind would doubt that, except of course the Opposition. When we see everything that is happening around us in Africa there is no doubt that this statement of mine, namely that South Africa is the bastion of Western civilization, is correct. In view of that I want to prove that we owe a debt of gratitude to the S.A.B.C. for their sense of truthful, impartial and responsible news reporting and the important service they are rendering to all national groups, including the non-Whites as well as members of the Opposition, by the dissemination of knowledge and correct information in order to expose those falsehoods and in order to combat those malicious influences from outside. The policy of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation is to provide the public with factual and unprejudiced news over the transmitters, news of a national, regional, international and general character. It is true that all news and information are offered in an objective and impartial way and because of their factual news value. All sides of a controversial issue are emphasized equally strongly.

Nonsense!

Who is saying it is nonsense? I say anybody can try to refute that. If you cannot see anything then everything is nonsense but I maintain that you cannot see anything and that you cannot see any good in anything and for that reason everything that you do see is nonsense. I repeat that all the news and information are offered in an objective and impartial way and because of their factual news value, and it makes no difference to me whether the Opposition says it is nonsense or not. They talk nonsense.

Comments in the form of statements or explanations are only broadcast when they emanate from somebody in authority. Statements made by a recognized expert or authority in his official capacity and on behalf of an organization or body are broadcast. That is why anything the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) says is nonsense because he is no authority and the S.A.B.C. takes no notice of statements made by him. Nor is he an official person in his party and that is why nothing he says is broadcast and that is why the hon. member is so against the S.A.B.C. [Interjections.] Nothing that the S.A.B.C. broadcasts is in conflict with the laws of the land or with provincial ordinances. It would have been a fine thing had the S.A.B.C. broadcast anything that was in conflict with our laws or ordinances. Every business in the country and every individual is expected to observe the laws and ordinances in this country. If we do not observe the laws of the land there are laws which punish us for the offence we commit. The S.A.B.C. also complies with that; it does not contravene the laws and ordinances of the land. The S.A.B.C. complies with this norm and we on the Government side are satisfied with the way in which it does it. Although it does not propagate the policy of the Government—I should have liked it to do so—it is at least expected not to act contrary to Government policy and that is precisely what makes the Opposition dissatisfied. They will only be satisfied if the S.A.B.C. were to act contrary to Government policy but can you imagine what would happen, Sir, if the S.A.B.C., which is absolutely impartial, were to act contrary to Government policy and were to condemn everything the Government did? It would create chaos in the country and what is happening in other countries will happen here too, namely that every now and then a different Government will come into power by the use of force.

Political news of a controversial nature is only broadcast if it is authoritative and of a factual nature. As I have said the hon. member for Orange Grove is not a person who has authority in his party and I can therefore understand why he is dissatisfied when something he says is not broadcast. That is why he is always attacking the S.A.B.C. The S.A.B.C. does, however, broadcast positive statements of policy by political parties which are represented in Parliament provided they do not compare themselves with or comment on the declared policy and actions of other South African political parties. As I have said the parties must be represented in Parliament and it is only then that their policy statements are broadcast. Parties which are not represented here cannot have their policy statements broadcast over the radio. That is why no reference is made to the Liberal Party and other parties which are not represented here. That is a very sound policy of the S.A.B.C., otherwise where would it end if the policy of every small party were to be broadcast over the radio? Nor does the S.A.B.C. use political arguments. News that is broadcast on religion, good taste, crime, sensation, suicide and advertising is all strictly subjected to the news code. Just as well that they do so because the Press sees to that. Sensational reports appear in the Press and you do not want to hear those over the radio to which small children are continually listening. That is why it is a good thing that this type of news about crime, suicide, etc., is not broadcast over the radio.

Mr. Speaker, I state in my motion that we are being overwhelmed by a flood of malicious propaganda from outside and that there are misrepresentations and false reports within our borders. At a later stage I shall prove what attacks are made on us from outside. In the meantime I just want to add that the news items contained in the bulletins broadcast by the S.A.B.C. have three sources, namely, the staff of the S.A.B.C. itself, the regional news reporters and the corps of correspondents throughout the country. They provide the regional news which is broadcast after the main news. I do not know whether the hon. member for Orange Grove also objects to that. Secondly, they get their news from four international news agencies, namely, United Press International, Reuter, Associated Press and the French Agency and last but not least, also our local agency, Sapa. The S.A.B.C. cannot broadcast all the news it gets from these three bodies because that would probably occupy the whole day. That is why it is understandable that the staff of the S.A.B.C. go through the news they get from these three bodies very carefully to make sure that it is in accordance with S.A.B.C. policy. This news is then tested to see whether it does not offend general good taste and the public’s sense of decency, with due regard to the cultural, social, educational, religious or economic circumstances and whether it complies with the legitimate aims of our language and cultural groups. If it complies with those requirements it is broadcast as news. I have no doubt but that the news which is broadcast by our radio complies with those requirements. It is truthful, impartial and highly responsible. It does not conflict with the laws or ordinances of the country nor does it offend religious feelings or hurt the racial groups.

I said I wanted to refer to the news broadcasts over overseas transmitters in connection with our internal political set-up and I want to ask the House to judge whether they comply with the demands with which the S.A.B.C. complies. I quote from an extract from a report over Radio Berlin International on 7 December 1963. Radio Berlin is in the East German Sector. A meeting was held by the German-African Friendship Society at which a certain Mr. John B. Marks was present. This Mr. John Marks is described by the East German Radio as a leading representative of the South African Liberation Movement. This Mr. Marks says, inter alia—

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of news you get. You must ask yourself this, Sir: Is it true, is it impartial, is it responsible? It is most certainly not. But that is not all. I also have an extract here from a report broadcast over Radio Peking on 15 September 1963—

When you analyse this report, Sir, you will see that its object is to incite a certain section in our country against the Whites who are called “settlers”. Is that responsible, is that being impartial? It is most certainly not. As to whether it is true or not, it is certainly far from the truth. I wonder what the hon. member for Orange Grove thinks of this report? But I want to go on reading what Radio Ghana broadcast on 18 September 1963 following upon this report they had just heard over Radio Peking. They follow upon this report by saying—

You see they go further, Mr. Speaker. Radio Peking only said that Dr. Verwoerd was arming the women to fight against the African Freedom Fighters but now it is stated that the women are shooting the Africans. [Laughter.]

You should be ashamed of yourselves for laughing about it.

My hon. friends opposite laugh when South Africa is attacked from outside. But I want to read further what Radio Ghana said—

Is that responsible reporting? I know we on this side of the House say it is not but I am sure the hon. member for Orange Grove will say that it is indeed responsible reporting and that it is true.

Read my amendment.

He will say it, as we shall hear in a moment. I go on and I read what Ghana says in connection with prison labour in South Africa. They say—

Mr. Speaker, again I ask you: Is that responsible reporting? This is the sort of attack on South Africa from outside that is refuted by the S.A.B.C., by giving us a truthful, impartial and responsible news service. But the Opposition does not want to believe that. What does the Broadcasting Corporation do in order to combat this sort of news broadcasting? Before I deal with that I just want to say this: Last year during the motion of no-confidence debate the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) levelled certain attacks at the Minister of Justice and she made the allegation that detainees who were held under the 90-day provision were ill treated. When I prepared this motion and investigated these reports from overseas I discovered certain things and now I no longer believe what the hon. member said in connection with the so-called ill treatment of detainees. It was arranged beforehand by those people who get their training overseas that, in order to gain sympathy here in South Africa, not only from their supporters here but from those overseas and in order to arouse antipathy towards South Africa, they would all say that they had been assaulted and that they were given electric shocks after a cloth had been put over their heads. That is what certain detainees allege. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Justice is not here at the moment. I just want to read what Radio Berlin International broadcast on 19 October 1963. This news item came from a Mrs. Finkelstein from South Africa who was on a visit there. She says the following—

This report was broadcast on 19 October 1963 and we were told that the information the hon. member for Houghton had was obtained subsequent to that. I think she saw the Minister of Justice on 31 October. It is clear, therefore, that that report did not come from South Africa at all. The object was to gain the sympathy of the world outside for the detainees and to arouse antipathy towards South Africa. What does the S.A.B.C. do to counter this type of news service? They go into these reports carefully and then they invite responsible people to give talks on subjects such as Communism, for example. The S.A. Broadcasting Corporation does not dictate to the people who give these talks on Communism what to say. They are responsible and prominent people, people who would not allow themselves to be dictated to. We in South Africa will never tolerate people telling us what to say. These responsible people then give talks in which the facts and our policy are set out. But the Opposition object to that. The newspapers cannot combat that type of news because if they published such a report and then simply repudiated it the public would not read it. The radio, however, reaches everybody and because the news service of the Broadcasting Corporation is truthful we can take notice of it and in that way get behind the truth.

Last year the Opposition launched an attack on the Minister of Justice and alleged that the Rule of Law no longer existed in this country. The allegation that the Rule of Law no longer existed in South Africa was broadcast to the world outside where it was also alleged that we were no longer a democratic country. I only mention that as an example of the type of news that goes out to the world and I want to tell hon. members what the Broadcasting Corporation is doing to combat it. The Broadcasting Corporation asked the hon. F. N. Broome, a Judge, to give a talk over the radio on the Rule of Law. I cannot imagine a Judge allowing himself to be influenced by any person in the S.A.B.C., not the chairman and not even the Minister.

He is a former United Party Member of Parliament.

Yes, I did not even want to mention that because I do not want to associate a Judge with any political party. Let me read what this Judge said in his radio talk to counter the type of reporting to which I have referred—

He then deals with the Rule of Law and he asks: What does the Rule of Law mean? It is not necessary for me to go into the meaning of the Rule of Law.

Mr. Speaker, we have entered into an agreement that the mover of a motion will have half an hour and the main speaker on the Opposition benches half an hour as well. I do not want to break my agreement with the Opposition. I shall consequently conclude on this note. I just want to add that I have no doubt but that the Broadcasting Corporation complies with the requirements of a truthful and impartial news service. I want to conclude by paying tribute to the S.A.B.C. and to thank them for the excellent service they are rendering to all national groups in South Africa.

I am afraid that the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) missed the whole point of our criticism of the S.A.B.C. He would have seen what it actually was if he had properly read the amendment which I intend to move and which is printed in my name. He will see that in that amendment we on this side of the House deprecate and reject ill-informed broadcasts coming from overseas, but at the same time we say that the way in which the S.A.B.C. is tackling the matter is entirely wrong. One does not contest and defeat misinformation by misinformation of one’s own. The reply to communist slanting is not Nationalist slanting—and that is where the S.A.B.C. has broken down.

Sir, actually it is with a certain measure of diffidence that I rise to dispel the illusions of the hon. member for Prinshof—the illusion about what a wonderful organization the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation is. No one can say that the hon. member for Prinshof does not deeply admire the S.A.B.C. In fact, I can even picture him, whenever the news comes on in the morning and at night, salaaming to the totem pole on Brixton Hill and expressing his view that there, after all, was the fount of all truth, and that great is The Hendrik and Albert is his prophet! Sir, I can understand that the hon. member for Prinshof feels that if you wanted the truth, you must go to the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation—for the Nationalist truth, the traditional truth, if not the factual truth. I can quite understand that if the hon. member for Prinshof were looking for facts, he would advise us to go to the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation, which is prepared to manufacture such facts as will fit in with his theories. I can quite imagine him telling us what a wonderful organization for cleanliness and moral purity the S.A.B.C. is. In fact, he might commend the S.A.B.C. as one of the best laundering devices for brainwashing that we have in South Africa.

Sir, this motion of the hon. member for Prinshof is not a motion, it is a poem, it is a fragile tribute to the S.A.B.C. It is an expression of everlasting devotion to the Broadcasting Corporation. Listen to some of the words: The S.A.B.C., he says, is truthful; it is impartial; it is highly responsible; it disseminates knowledge against malicious influences. Where on other occasions we often find motions in this House thanking the Minister, this motion goes further. It does not only thank the S.A.B.C., it pays tribute to the S.A.B.C.—tributes with rare incense and myrrh, rich gems and karosses, I presume. Sir, I think that, even at the risk of wounding the hon. member for Prinshof, I have to propose an amendment to his motion. I am afraid I cannot agree with anything in that motion except the first word, and I therefore wish to move the following amendment—

This House further—

1. (1) deplores the one-sided presentation of political material by the South African Broadcasting Corporation in news broadcasts and political talks on both the ordinary and Bantu programmes; and
2. (2) demands that equal opportunity in such broadcasts should be given for the expression of responsible opposition points of view”

Sir, I shall not seek to match the wide-eyed adulation of the hon. member for Prinshof with a completely unrelieved denigration of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. In fact, I am perfectly prepared to say that in many respects, outside the political talks and broadcasts, the S.A.B.C. is doing a good job. Some of the entertainment material that we get is outstanding. We have had original programmes produced in South Africa, in the studios of the S.A.B.C., of a high quality. Many of them have shown originality and initiative. The technical staff, the technical department of the S.A.B.C., has indeed done excellent work. But everything in the S.A.B.C. that is good is being destroyed by the fact that through its news broadcasts and the political talks the S.A.B.C. has been sold, body and soul, to become a slanted, vicious, petty, servile propaganda lackey of a political party. It has become a spineless, abject puppet for a sinister secret organization. It has become a robot with an automated parrot inside it. Sir, the S.A.B.C. is its own worst enemy.

Let us look at the motion of the hon. member for Prinshof. He claims, first of all, that the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation is truthful. Sir, when you take an oath to speak the truth you take an oath to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I submit that the S.A.B.C. fails on all three of those counts. Does it speak the whole truth? We have heard wonderful broadcasts about the events in the Transkei, broadcasts which suited the Government—but were we told about other events in the Transkei, since it became independent, which contradict those wonderful reports? Why was there such a terrific silence about the rather strange career of the present Minister of Justice in the Transkei, Mr. George Matanzima? The S.A.B.C. told us very little about that. When a Sabra conference is held, we hear reports of the speeches made; when an equally important conference of Institute of Race Relations is held in Cape Town, where speakers such as Professor Dr. Hobart Houghton, a member of the Prime Minister’s own Economic Council or Dr. Frans Cronje, who is by no means a leftist or a liberal, deliver speeches they are not considered fit for reporting by the S.A.B.C.

When a bulletin of the International Commission of Jurists was broadcast over the S.A.B.C., we heard from that bulletin how the Commission criticized racial disturbances in the United States of America, but practically the very next paragraph, in which criticism was made of South Africa, was left out of that broadcast. Some publicity has been given to the challenge issued to the hon. the Prime Minister on the Broederbond, but somewhere along the line an instruction must have gone out to the S.A.B.C., because I am told that the Prime Minister’s words about Anglo American were never even mentioned over the S.A.B.C.

The hon. member for Prinshof spoke about South Africa being attacked, and about our enemies abroad. Does he realize that at one stage the S.A.B.C. actually had to apologize to the United Nations for a wrong broadcast? I have the full particulars here. The head of the News Service of the S.A.B.C., Mr. J. E. van Zyl, told the United Nations that a radio report quoting a petitioner to the world body as calling for an armed invasion of South Africa, may have been inaccurate; if it was, the Corporation regretted it. The Corporation had to apologize to a body which another speaker in a talk on the Corporation called “a monstrous organization”.

Sir, let us next analyse whether, as the motion of the hon. member for Prinshof says, the S.A.B.C. is actually impartial. I think the motion itself condemns the hon. member because the motion in fact calls on the S.A.B.C. to be a propaganda organ, a partial organ, to be one-sided even if it was only to give the one side of the Nationalist Government. If the hon. member does not believe that, may I quote to him the words of a news broadcaster on the S.A.B.C. only a few weeks ago? These are the words of Mr. Hugh Rouse, whom I think we all know. In addressing the Johannesburg Junior Chamber of Commerce in November, he said—

Then Mr. Rouse went on to say this—

But if that does not yet satisfy the hon. member for Prinshof, let me quote to him the words of the S.A.B.C.’s Director of Programmes, Mr. Douglas Fuchs. He wrote a letter to a certain Mr. R. Lamb, which was handed to the Press, and in that letter the Director of Programmes said this (in October last year)—

The Director of Programmes of the S.A.B.C. therefore believes that limits should be set to impartiality! Actually the Director was replying to criticism made of a series of political talks delivered by a certain gentleman, Mr. Ivor Benson, who regularly broadcasts over the S.A.B.C. network. I think I should say something more about this gentleman, because his talks have constituted one of the main bones of contention which ordinary listeners have had with the S.A.B.C. Mr. Benson was at one time a reporter on the Rand Daily Mail, and then he became a Nationalist. It might be post hoc ergo propter hoc, but in any case I am not saying that. Nor am I associating myself with all the attacks made on Mr. Benson. I have heard one or two of his talks which are to a certain extent acceptable. I found a talk of his in which he exposed some of the South Africans broadcasting behind the Iron Curtain most interesting and factual. But having said that I should say that the talks of this gentleman have shocked the feelings of all those who believe that the airwaves should not be sullied, as they are by Moscow or Peking, by one-sided propaganda. Mr. Benson has torn the mask of impartiality from the face of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation, revealing it as a shameless trumpeter of Nationalist Party propaganda. There is no denying the fact that on occasion those talks have been biased, argumentative, illogical and unfair. I have here a booklet sent to me by the S.A.B.C. containing the talks of Mr. Benson. It is unbelievable, Sir, but actually they are now publishing those talks in a booklet. Sir, you would never believe me, but it was actually printed by Dagbreek. Let us look at some of the things said by this gentleman, Mr. Benson. The hon. member for Prinshof claims the S.A.B.C. is impartial and unbiased. Listen to Mr. Benson, their propagandist, himself. He says this, about himself—

Mr. Benson calls himself a highly biased individual; how can the hon. member for Prinshof say there is impartiality in the S.A.B.C.? Here is an example of the reporting in those political talks. He said on one occasion—

Mr. Speaker, to judge from that news talk one would have thought that Durban had gone Nationalist, that the Durban City Corporation had a Nationalist mayor and a Nationalist City Council and that all seats would be won by the Nationalist Party. But as Mr. Benson says himself—

I can go on, Sir, and point out how he made an entirely unwarranted political attack on the Christian Institute which he associated with Mr. Soapy Williams just as he associated the World Council of Churches with the communists. This was what Mr. Benson said in one of his talks—

This is an employee of the S.A.B.C. talking—

In another talk he attacked the Christian ecumenical movement, the movement which tried to get the churches of the Christian faith closer together. He attacked them in these words—

What is wrong with that?

It is an unfair attack on 99 per cent of the Christian churches that belong to the World Council of Churches; it is an unfair attack on Christians accusing them of being influenced by and being taken over by communists. If that is not unfair, Sir, I should like to know what is.

But why listen to what I have to say? Why do we not read some of the condemnations out of their own mouths? South Africa’s premier Nationalist columnist—I admit he is—is Dawie of the Burger. He complained about the politics of the S.A.B.C. I shall read what he wrote in translated form. He said—

Dawie went on and said—

Is that a defence of impartiality? Then Dawie says this—

And so say all of us.

The third part of the motion of the hon. member for Prinshof states that the S.A.B.C. was highly responsible in its broadcasts. May I ask the hon. member for Prinshof, or any member on that side, whether the incidents connected with the broadcast of the opinions of the Reverend Beyers Naudé were a highly responsible act, when it was followed by an interruption of the ordinary programme by a special announcement from the Broederbond denying what Reverend Naudd had said—with no opportunity of refuting that accusation after wards?

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) cannot be here to-day. He wrote to Mr. Fuchs, the Director of Programmes, about this interruption of an ordinary broadcast to announce a special statement by the Broederbond. Mr. Fuchs replied—

Can it be justified on the ground of public interest?

Is the defence of a secret society, a non public society, of public interest in South Africa? Did the S.A.B.C. find out who the spokesman were of the Broederbond? Did they find out what authority there was behind that statement? Was it issued by the secretary? By the chairman? By the High Council? By the chairman of the S.A.B.C. itself? Mr. Speaker, that, too, shocked the Burger and Dawie, its columnist. Dawie said this—

The S.A.B.C. was not being impartial, it was not being responsible. Its own newspapers say they were playing cowboys and robbers in that particular broadcast. Dawie added this—

As I wish to adhere to the agreement as regards the length of my speech, I cannot go into many other details and give further examples that I have of the highly irresponsible actions of the S.A.B.C. I could have mentioned the attack made by the hon. the Minister of Justice on Nusas without the latter being given an opportunity of replying. I could have told you about the very strange case of Mr. Eric Louw—I beg your pardon, Sir, Dr. Eric Louw—we seem to have left behind those good old colonial days when even a witchdoctor had to study for his degree—attacking the S.A.B.C. for having placed him in an embarrassing position by having attacked the United Nations radio. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said, and it was published in the Press—

Now, Sir, embarrassing Mr. Eric Louw—well! You might as well try to make Miss Keeler blush.

I want to make some positive suggestions as to what should be done. We on this side are concerned about the fact, that the programmes of the S.A.B.C., particularly the English programmes, are losing their listener-ship on a vast scale. A recent survey has shown that eight times as many Afrikaans listeners listen to the A-programme news as those who listen to the B-programme news in English. What are the reasons, Sir, for this criticism throughout the whole of the country? First of all, I believe the news sources are inadequate. The hon. member mentioned many news services. Did he mention the fact that his own Minister had attacked Sapa which is one of the sources of news of the broadcasting service? I believe it is entirely wrong that there should be such close ties between the Department of Information, the Cabinet, and the S.A.B.C. And I believe it is undesirable, highly undesirable, that Government Departments, such as the Department of Bantu Administration and the Department of Information, should be represented directly on certain important S.A.B.C. bodies.

I object furthermore to the fact that there is too close a tie, not only indirectly but directly, between the S.A.B.C. and that underground secret society, the Broederbond. If you want to know where the tie is, where the link is, Sir, you need only look right to the top, to the chairman of the Broederbond who is also chairman of the S.A.B.C. I also say there is too close a tie between the S.A.B.C. and certain large newspaper interests in South Africa. I am not accusing the hon. the Minister of using his position in any way unfairly as a member of the board of directors of one of the country’s great newspaper companies, but I do say that the appearance of impartiality must be there. There is one thing that he must consider and that is to resign his directorship of that newspaper company, particularly after a statement he had made in which he said that if television were to be introduced the Afrikaans newspapers would lose a great deal of their advertising.

Sir, there are specific remedies that I wish to recommend. First of all I recommend that it be laid down in the licence which the hon. the Minister grants under Section 15 of the Broadcasting Act to the S.A.B.C., that its news should be impartial. It should be laid down as a condition of that licence that political broadcasts of a controversial kind should not be permitted. That, Sir, is part of the licence issued in Britain to the British Broadcasting Corporation. Why can that not be done in South Africa? Why should the licence of the S.A.B.C. not also contain a prohibition on broadcasts of its own opinion on current affairs and public policy? Surely that is a fair request? Why can it not be stated in the licence? Why can it not be stated in the licence of the S.A.B.C. that it is not allowed to broadcast its own opinions on controversial issues? And, if it insists on broadcasting on controversial issues, it gives the other side an equal chance. That is my second recommendation: If the Minister does not agree to laying down those conditions let him then at least see to it that Nationalist-orientated speeches are balanced by speeches from a responsible Opposition point of view.

Thirdly I recommend that the S.A.B.C. should be made subject to the fine code of conduct of the Press Board. Is the S.A.B.C. afraid to subscribe to that clause in the Code of Conduct that news should be impartial, that it should be truthful and that it should not be slanted? Why are they afraid to sign that Code of Conduct? Fourthly, let the direct ties with Government Departments be cut. Fifthly, let the hon. the Minister himself break those close ties of association that he has with the big newspaper companies. After all the S.A.B.C. is a competing medium of news. Sixthly, let the listeners who pay for the S.A.B.C. have the way in which their money is being spent on news broadcasts regularly investigated. Let the books of the S.A.B.C. be subject to control by the Auditor-General. And seventhly, do as we ask in this amendment—appoint a Commission of Inquiry into all these matters.

I want to say in conclusion that nothing would have given me greater pleasure, had we had a broadcasting corporation of the character that all of us on this side of the House desire, than to have seconded, albeit in less flowery language, the motion of the hon. member for Prinshof. But I believe the South African Broadcasting Corporation has failed and to my regret, I therefore move this amendment which is standing in my name.

In terms of our arrangement, I and the three speakers who follow me have each only 15 minutes and therefore I shall have to hurry. One cannot really say much about the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, because through the number of adjectives he has used here he has simply proved how confused his mind is. He told two palpable falsehoods here which I should like to deal with. The first was in regard to the talks by Mr. Ivor Benson, where he said that Mr. Benson himself admitted that he was prejudiced. But is the hon. member too dishonest to read further from that same paragraph?

Order!

Order!

I will withdraw the word “dishonest” and say that the hon. member deliberately did not read further. If he had read the paragraph further, he would quite clearly have understood the import of Mr. Benson’s words, viz. that he was prejudiced in favour of South Africa. That is what he says. If the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) wants to deny it, I should like him to read that paragraph further. Mr. Benson is prejudiced in favour of South Africa. Is not the hon. member for Orange Grove?

Prejudiced in favour of the Nationalist Party.

Read that pamphlet. I want to leave this point. I shall return in a moment to Mr. Benson and his talks.

A second attack was launched against the S.A.B.C. in regard to the broadcast about the Broederbond. I want to deal with that for a few moments. The hon. member’s attack amounts to this, that the normal services of the S.A.B.C. were interrupted to broadcast this minor squabble in the Broederbond. That is his attack at the moment.

The Burger said so.

I say the hon. member said it. Now I want to rectify that immediately. The programmes of the S.A.B.C. are drawn up at least six weeks before the time and sent to the printers so that the S.A. Radio Bulletin can be printed. It is logical that when one draws up a programme six weeks beforehand, and it is the task of the S.A.B.C. to disseminate information from day to day and to remain au fait with developments, it cannot adhere to that programme, otherwise it will be an inflexible institution. The result is that the S.A.B.C. from time to time interrupts its programmes in order to broadcast serious and urgent matters of interest. That was not the first time that a programme was interrupted. Surely the hon. member knows that. There was an interruption when President Kennedy was buried. The English programmes were interrupted for the whole of that day in order to broadcast that funeral.

Do you want to use that as a comparison?

No, I will not compare it with that, just as little as I can compare you with a decent person.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. But after a speech such as we have just had, and after such interjections from people whom we know …

The hon. member should leave that there also.

I shall continue, Sir. Now I want the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) to listen. The S.A.B.C. interrupted its programme on 10 December at 6.5 p.m., to broadcast to pay a tribute to the late Senator Fagan. I challenge the hon. member to ask again: Do you want to compare that? The S.A.B.C. did so because the late Senator Fagan was a poet and a figure in Afrikaans cultural life. It interrupted its programme on 15 December when the programme “Die Mag van die Melodie” was cancelled in order to broadcast “Die Opmars van die Sprinkane”—a programme in regard to how the locust plague was being combated. The suspension of programmes in order to broadcast current events is therefore nothing new, and therefore it is not relevant. That portion of the hon. member’s argument therefore falls away.

The second part of his argument is that the Broederbond question was an insignificant matter and that it was not necessary to broadcast it. Then he says that the case for the Broederbond was put by the Broederbond organization. I have the information here. It is quite clear that this programme which was broadcast in connection with the Broederbond was based on reports received from Sapa. They were not received from the Broederbond, but from Sapa-Reuter. The statement made by the Rev. Beyers Naude was received, and also the reply to it by the Broederbond, as news reports sent by Sapa to the S.A.B.C. [Interjections.]

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

Secondly, Dr. Beyers Naude was not an insignificant figure. He was Moderator of the N.G. Kerk in the Southern Transvaal, the Church with the most White members in the whole Republic of South Africa. He is therefore a prominent figure, and when he makes a statement in regard to a certain matter and there is a reply, and Sapa regards it as being newsworthy, then the S.A.B.C. would be neglecting its duty if it did not broadcast that news. Tremendous prominence was given to this matter in the newspapers, particularly in the north. I was not in Cape Town then and I do not know what happened here. The S.A.B.C. must keep pace with events; it must give the information, and it gave the information. It broadcast the verbatim statement of the Rev. Naude and the reply to it by that organization. The hon. member says that was an unimportant matter and that the S.A.B.C. was put at the disposal of the Broederbond. Both sides of the picture were given. The hon. member mentioned the example of N.U.S.A.S. I do not even want to discuss that. That was another instance where the programmes were interrupted to broadcast both a statement by the chairman of N.U.S.A.S. and one by the Minister of Justice.

Was the further reply by N.U.S.A.S. broadcast? That was the important one.

The attack and the reply were given. The hon. member knows that if once the one side has replied, then the other side wants to reply also. When must it stop then? I think the hon. members of the Opposition are obsessed with the Broederbond these days. The Broederbond is dragged into every debate holus bolus, whether it is relevant or not.

Mr. Speaker, the task of the S.A.B.C. is to reflect the daily life of South Africa in the light of the dynamic, energetic development which is taking place in terms of our national policy. I state clearly that that is its task. In the radio we have a mighty medium to perform this task, of one remembers that the radio in fact is in contact with the whole of the world. There are more than 10,000 radio stations in the world, and 400,000,000 radio sets, according to an estimate which was made. In South Africa alone there are more than 2,000,000 receiving sets by means of which it is estimated that approximately 5,000,000 people listen in. At the moment there are 1,250,000 paid radio licences in South Africa, of which 128,000 are non-White licences. Talking about non-Whites, I may just mention in passing the tremendous power of the radio, the talks given over the Bantu news services, and the influence it exerts. A year ago the S.A.B.C. received 20,000 letters from Bantu every month. It is a mighty method of communication, and therefore a tremendous responsibility rests on the S.A.B.C., and also on those who attack it, to be reasonable in all respects in approaching these matters.

The hon. member who has just spoken and who has now conveniently walked out …

No, there he is.

… objected to the fact that the S.A.B.C. interprets and depicts the way of life in South Africa, as it is at present. I want to ask the hon. member whether he objects to this mighty medium exercising all the influence it can to build up South Africa in this country and overseas? Does he object to this body being used to propagate South Africa’s way of life and its culture, both in this country and overseas? Does he object to its being used to protect South Africa against attacks from outside by giving people the correct information? The hon. member uses the argument that it is a crime against South Africa for the S.A.B.C. to be partial to and to make propaganda for the Government, as he says it does. Let me tell him this. If it is a crime to promote the interests of South Africa within the framework of accepted conventions and customs in the Republic, if it is a crime to try to promote sound relations between all population groups of the country, White and non-White, if it is a crime to reflect in all its programmes that which is sound and noble in the way of life and the culture of every population group, if it is a crime to refuse to vilify South Africa and to weaken the confidence in the country, to foster unrest and to encourage subversive groups by giving publicity to their activities and their meetings, if it is a crime to refuse to promote agitation against laws passed by the democratically-elected representatives of the people, if it is a crime to give information in regard to Communism and one sided, distorted Press reports, thereby to restore the balance on the part of the public so that they, with all the facts available to them, can form their own opinions, if it is a crime to be pro-South Africa, then the S.A.B.C. is definitely guilty of that crime. No, Sir, if it promotes the interests of South Africa in the mind of the listener, then the S.A.B.C. is really a law-abiding citizen who does his duty towards his country and his people, and then the criminal sits over there in the bench of the hon. member for Orange Grove, who is fomenting unrest and is being an instrument in the hands of people who subvert South Africa. According to those hon. members, the Government is being benefited. What is the policy of the S.A.B.C.? I cannot deal with everything, but what is the policy of the S.A.B.C. in respect of political matters?

I think the hon. member has referred to the hon. member for Orange Grove and said that if he did that then he is a criminal.

You are a little late.

Did the hon. member say that?

Mr. Speaker, I said that if what I say is true then that hon. member is the criminal who vilifies South Africa. If he does not do so, then he is innocent. He himself can decide whether he is guilty or not. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) has now wasted my time. I hope I get injury time.

The next point I want to mention is the advantage derived by the Government through the S.A.B.C. I want to say immediately that the S.A.B.C. has a specific policy in regard to political matters. That policy is that only people clothed with authority to talk on behalf of those whom they represent, and who in fact have the power to put their policies into effect by democratic and constitutional means, are accepted by the S.A.B.C. as policy makers. During the referendum in 1960 there was a circular in which the S.A.B.C. stated its standpoint very clearly. I have the English version of it here, and they put it as follows—and that will give the hon. member an idea of whom the S.A.B.C. regards as leaders and as policy-makers—

In those days it was still the late Mr. Swart—

The hon. member should therefore achieve some status in his own party before he can receive the publicity he would like. In his own party he does not enjoy the necessary attention. Sir, in so far as impartiality is concerned, in regard to the General Laws Amendment Bill, 9,590 words were broadcast by the S.A.B.C. to state the Government’s standpoint, and 9,850 words to state the standpoint of the Opposition. In other words, I think we are really the people who can accuse the S.A.B.C. of favouring the Opposition and of giving them more publicity than they deserve. [Time limit.]

It is difficult to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) …

It is impossible to reply.

Impossible? Let me put it this way, that I do not find it necessary to reply, because what the hon. member said was of a personal nature, was extravagant and not correct. Mr. Speaker, you yourself had to call the hon. member to order, and I think it is necessary that we should draw the attention of this House to the language used by the hon. member. In referring to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), the hon. member said that the hon. member for Orange Grove would have to acquire more importance in the eyes of his own party before his words would be broadcast. May I lay those very same words at the door of the hon. member for Randfontein, that he should gain in importance in his own party. According to what he himself quoted in regard to the Broadcasting Corporation, he is not important enough to be heard over the radio. The hon. member spoke about what happened at the time of the referendum for the Republic, but may I remind him that at that time there was still a semblance of impartiality in regard to the S.A.B.C. May I remind him that at that time the “News from Parliament” was a good service enjoyed by everybody, and may I remind him that during this present Session when the no-confidence debate was opened here, the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation instead of broadcasting what the Leader of the Opposition, whose motion it was after all, had to say, they started off by dealing with the tedious speech of the hon. the Prime Minister who bored the House for three solid hours. Sir, that was a no-confidence debate. If that was an example of impartiality, then I have nothing further to say. Is that impartiality that when a no-confidence debate is broadcast, you start off with the reply of the hon. the Prime Minister?

The hon. member for Randfontein was worried about the Broederbond.

No, you are worried.

He was worried about what he stated had been said by the hon. member for Orange Grove, but it is to me so evident that the hon. member for Randfontein has not even got ears to listen, or he has no brain to take in what he hears. The hon. member for Orange Grove was quoting from the Burger. He was not expressing his own views at all, but was quoting what “Dawie” of the Burger had said.

Are you a member of the “Moederbond”?

I want to say that the part that the South African Broadcasting Corporation should play in South Africa is the most important one of any public body in this country. I want to say that because of our peculiar position, this is even more true in South Africa than in any other country in the world, as I shall show. In the rest of the world people get news services from all sources; they have television, they have many more newspapers than we have in South Africa. I am thinking of the big cities in America for instance where you have the choice of seven morning papers and seven evening papers. Here if you want an English-speaking paper in the morning, you are limited to one. And the same applies to the Afrikaans-speaking newspapers. In other countries there are independent radio services that are competitive with one another, and so people listen to a variety of news and viewpoints and they can form their own opinion. In other countries religious parties as well as political parties have the right to put their points of view over the radio, because, as I have said, there are many radio stations that are privately owned and therefore independent. Here in South Africa we are very limited, and it is because of that that the Broadcasting Corporation should in its news services and its talks be entirely independent and it should not put over only Government policy. Because I want to state here categorically that South Africa is so unpopular overseas because of Government policy, and the only redeeming feature in regard to South Africa in the world to-day is the fact that there is still a strong Opposition.

What do we find? We find attacks on other people and on other nations, and we find that the S.A.B.C. is not even willing, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has said, to limit itself to the Press code which it itself has said is so good. There is a provision in the Press code that where people and institutions are attacked, they must have the opportunity to reply through the same medium. What have we here? We have a one-sided presentation of news, favouring the Government, and attacking anybody who differs from the Government. We have got news services and talks about “Apartheid” and race relations, news services that talk about “so-called Progressives and fellow-travellers”. We had the story that it is the duty of the Press and the S.A.B.C.—and the hon. member who introduced it said it, as well as the hon. member for Randfontein—to protect the South African way of life. I agree. It is the duty of the S.A.B.C. to protect South Africa, but not by preaching Government policy, because, as I have said, that is hated by the whole world. It is most interesting to see how quick the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation is to criticize anybody else who from their point of view does not do justice to this Government’s ideas and points of view. I was interested to note that the hon. member for Prinshof quoted all sorts of radio broadcasts, from Peking, from Ghana, from heaven knows where, he spent most of his time in telling us what other broadcasting services of the world do. He spent very little time telling us what our own broadcasting service is saying. But this is what the S.A.B.C. had to say, speaking about the British broadcasting service—

Then they continue—

Mr. Speaker, they gave at least ten opportunities. But what happens in South Africa? We do not even get the chance to get one minute for our side. Other speakers have pointed out that the news that is presented by the S.A.B.C. is not always correct either, and I want to quote two examples. The one is that when the hon. Minister of Justice in this House discussed a newspaper report about “accepting briberies in regard to liquor licences by M.P.s” and when the hon. Minister stated that that particular report had been published in the Vaderland or Sondagblad, what happened? The S.A. Broadcasting Corporation brought this news but they omitted the name of the particular paper. Their version was that the offending report had appeared in a Johannesburg Sunday newspaper. Knowing full well how all the time they are accusing the English language Press of wrong information, why did they not in that instance say very clearly what paper it was? Because this was a most serious matter, because it impugned the honesty of members of this House, and it should at least have been stated which newspaper in particular was responsible for this statement.

I want to quote something else. We have had from the Government side lately a great wooing of the English-speaking people of South Africa.

We are very fond of them.

Is that so? I want to quote from a news talk over the South Africa Radio by a man called Martin Spring. I do not know who he is, but I know that he was speaking about the General Law Amendment Act, and this particular broadcast was a broadcast to schoolchildren, to our schools, and the subject was “Mrs. Helen Joseph”.

A communist.

For heavens sake can we not find a better subject than a person like that when we talk to our school-children? What is the use of all that? Then they go on and make the mistake of saying that Mrs. Helen Joseph was a named communist. That was an untrue statement. First of all, I cannot see any reason why they talked about her to schoolchildren, not a particularly popular person, I suppose, and then they went on to say—

Then they go on and say that Britain has gone even further than the Republic in this respect. She is reported to be holding in goal without trial 200 people suspected of terrorist activities in Northern Ireland. “Some of them have been incarcerated for many, many years”

Is that not correct?

Of course it is not true and the British Government stated emphatically that it was not so. But why give incorrect information? The English Government has stated that people had been gaoled after having been tried for being in possession of explosives, or committing sabotage acts and things like that, and it was stated that at that particular time there was not one single person in goal in that connection. Sir, this was misleading information, misleading information about people who have their origin in Great Britain “the English-speaking friends”, the hon. member for Cradock is talking about. Sir, I regret but I have to say that I must vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Orange Grove which says “in view of the often ill-informed and slanted reports on South Africa”, we ask that a commission of inquiry be appointed to go into the whole matter.

The hon. members of the Opposition are undoubtedly very grateful for the new rules which now apply to this debate and in terms of which they have only a certain time in which to talk, because thus far all the speakers on that side have said that they lacked the time to give certain facts. Sir, the facts we have been given so far are all so-called facts which we have already heard in this House before, old matters they are raking up, and no new facts have come to light. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) probably made his salaams to the Hertzog Tower every morning when the news was broadcast. I want to tell the hon. member that not only the hon. member for Prinshof salaams the Hertzog Tower, but all the hon. members opposite, and all the inhabitants of the Republic will still one day bend down to salaam the Hertzog Tower as a mark of gratitude for the guidance it gave in broadcasting news impartially and in putting matters impartially to the people of the Republic of South Africa, in such an impartial manner that we will have peace in this country, and we will make our salaams to them because they are responsible for the rapid development we are experiencing at the moment. If it were not for the impartial manner in which the S.A.B.C. has acted, we would surely have had great dissatisfaction and race riots already in the Republic of South Africa. But those hon. members come here to-day with a few isolated instances. One would have expected the hon. member for Orange Grove to come along with new attacks, but he again dragged the ex-Minister of the Interior into this matter, and he spoke about things which have become so sawn off already that nobody wants to listen any longer.

Let us take the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove. His complaint against the S.A.B.C. is that it is not efficient. He himself admitted that it was efficient, and every member of this House and every person outside will tell the hon. member that it is nonsense to say that the S.A.B.C. is not efficient. On the contrary, it can be proved that there is no similar organization which is as efficiently organized as the S.A.B.C., and we want to give it all the credit for that.

I come to the second point. He says that the S.A.B.C. is irresponsible. Sir, can the hon. member mention a single case to this House and to the outside world where the S.A.B.C. has acted irresponsibly? I will deal in a moment with his allegation in regard to news broadcasts which are biased. Sir, what is the task of the Broadcasting Corporation? Is it not to educate, to inform and to amuse its listeners? Is that not its most important task? And I want to allege to-day that the S.A.B.C. has succeeded in a masterly fashion in acquitting itself efficiently of those tasks entrusted to it. The S.A.B.C. has to-day succeeded in reaching the masses in South Africa. Just as in any environment we find that the local daily newspaper exerts influence and that the subscribers to that paper pay heed to what it says, in the same way the S.A.B.C. has spread its wings further and wider over the Republic, and it has instilled confidence into the inhabitants of the Republic, irrespective of their language or religious beliefs or political convictions, and the people have begun to trust in the guidance given to them by the S.A.B.C. to-day.

The S.A.B.C. has a very difficult and unenviable task to perform. Its task is different from that of the daily newspaper which appears every day. The newspaper has its subscribers who accept its views, but the S.A.B.C. must satisfy everybody, irrespective of their language, their religion, or their superstitions, whether they be young or old, rich or poor, clever or stupid, educated or illiterate. It must comply with the needs of everyone. And it must not satisfy those needs for a few minutes only, but for many hours every day. Has not the S.A.B.C. in masterly fashion succeeded in performing that unenviable task of satisfying all these different people? But if we are to believe the hon. member for Orange Grove, the S.A.B.C. has not succeeded in doing so, because he says it has not broadcast the views and standpoints of the various political parties. I want to say that the S.A.B.C. has succeeded in broadcasting to the inhabitants of South Africa from time to time the views of the various parties. We found that during the recent session the standpoint of the United Party was broadcast to a greater extent than the views of members on this side of the House. But did that benefit the Opposition in any way? No, they lost two members. Therefore my advice to them is that the less we hear about them, the better things will go with them.

Now the hon. members for Orange Grove and Drakensberg say that the S.A.B.C. is prejudiced in the views it broadcasts. I want to ask any hon. member opposite: Did any of those hon. members during the past session receive letters from their White voters objecting to the prejudiced broadcasts of the S.A.B.C., and do they have those letters in their offices so that they may be produced? And, secondly, did they receive any letters from Bantu in the Republic objecting to the biased broadcasts of the S.A.B.C.?

May I reply to the hon. member?

If there are any hon. members who have such letters, I should like them to produce them. The first hon. member opposite who follows me can say whether they have such letters.

I go further. In 1961 a report appeared on the front page of the Rand Daily Mail. The matter really started on 19 April 1961 in the Star, in which the following was said—

Then they say further that a meeting was held and that they would ask the people to set in motion a chain-letter reaction to write to the Ministers in connection with the matter. On 1 December 1961 we found a report on the front page of the Rand Daily Mail to the effect that the Black Sash had started drawing up petitions right throughout the Republic. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has ever received any of these letters, and how many petitions he received from people objecting to the prejudiced broadcasts by Radio South Africa. I should be glad to get this information from the Minister in view of this tremendous campaign waged against the S.A.B.C. Did anyone take notice of it? Was anyone interested in it? What was the result of these petitions? Was there any reaction on the part of the ordinary listeners?

There is something which hon. members opposite do not understand. They do not realize what the task of the S.A.B.C. is. Its task is to achieve racial peace and to preserve it in our multi-racial country, by providing complete, balanced and true information for its listeners. I allege that the S.A.B.C. has succeeded wonderfully in this task entrusted to it, and I say further that the great majority of the listeners in the Republic, and the great majority of the inhabitants of South Africa, with the exception of a handful of agitators who sit there and tell us all this nonsense, and who talk about malpractices in the S.A.B.C., are highly satisfied. The rest of the listeners are quite satisfied with the services they receive, and we thank the S.A.B.C. for the wonderful services they render in such an impartial manner.

As requested by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout), I commence with a salaam to the Hertzog Tower. I hope that that satisfies him. I accept the challenge that he issued in regard to what I think can be called the exchange of letters. I put it to him this way: Providing he is prepared to exchange with me any file on any one subject about which he has received letters, or I have received letters, that affect the government of South Africa, including the broadcasting system, I accept that challenge—on the undertaking that he will publish the letters which I have received and that I have permission to publish the letters that he has received about Government policy. I am prepared to accept such an offer now, because if he were to go through his files—I do not expect him to confirm or deny what I say—he will find so many letters complaining of the S.A.B.C. and other aspects of Government policy, that he will not venture to mention the subject again. The difficulty we have here is that, as usual, we have to discuss this question of the S.A.B.C. and its policy in regard to news and talks, in a sort of vacuum. There is no comparison that we can make with any other system in this country, by virtue of the very cosy monopoly which the S.A.B.C. enjoys, and which, in regard to the news and talks that it offers to the public, it abuses. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Orange Grove when he says that in other respects the S.A.B.C. renders excellent service. We may differ about the type of music it plays from time to time, but tastes differ; and we can perhaps find minor criticisms of some of its educational activities—but other than that, and leaving out completely the question of the news services and those talks which come under the heading of news, we do not quibble with the efficiency and the good intentions of the S.A.B.C. it is when we come to the question of opinions, which should be used to give a fair cross-section of opinions in all parts of South Africa and of all political parties, that the impartiality of the S.A.B.C. breaks down completely. To-day we have the position where it voices the policy of the Prime Minister and the Government to the exclusion of any other policy, and of any other point of view. If I were asked to point to the evidence of that, I dare say that I might be challenged on the basis that the S.A.B.C. does not actively indulge in bringing to the microphone people who will say: I am a supporter of the Government, and now I am going to talk to you on the subject for half an hour. It is done in a far more subtle way than that. They present their spokesmen in the course of these talks which are broadcast in order to inform the public, and I will deal with that in due course. I dare say that the S.A.B.C. started off with good intentions and really intended to carry out the policy expressed in the last report available, for 1962, in these words—

Now, had it stopped there and carried out that part of the tenet, of its creed, the position would have been very different; but it goes on to say

While no one denies that it is necessary to prevent anybody from undermining the safety of the country, the question as to whether it is the function of the S.A.B.C., in regard to news and talks, to prevent the undermining of the country is a moot point, because the more we are told in truthful terms about the attempts to undermine the country, the better we will be able to combat those attempts. But that is not what we are told. We are rather fed on the political point of view of those who support the Government, to the exclusion of any contrary point of view, despite the fact that the contrary viewpoint, has nothing to do with undermining the Government, and despite the fact that outside the National Party there are hundreds of thousands of White South Africans who are as loyal and as determined not to allow the country to be undermined, as they are. But where do they get a voice on the S.A.B.C.? This, Sir, has become known in some quarters as “The Voice of Verwoerd”, in line with “The Voice of America”—the difference being that in the United States…. [Interjection.] Sir, I ask myself how does one silence that perennial practitioner of political perversion in these parliamentary precincts? You, Sir, tried last year. Now, in terms of the regulations that govern the use of this very important medium of public communication in the U.S.A., it is clear—and if anyone doubts it I have an official publication here to prove it—that “the U.S. Government does not conduct radio or television programmes for domestic consumption”. Those are all provided by private enterprise, to the extent that in the U.S.A. there are some 4,500 radio stations independently and privately operated, and there are 150,000,000 radio sets to receive the programmes from these stations, with no interference from the Government or from any utility corporation which is a quasi-Government organization. An opportunity is given to the listener to get every and any point of view about any matter of public interest, including Government policy. Anyone who has been to the United States could hear for himself how many times a day the policy of the U.S. Government, whichever party is in power, is attacked by this, that or the other radio station—not once, but hundreds of times every day. If the S.A.B.C. claims that it is in fact carrying out its objective of ensuring impartiality, not only would it allow a contrary point of view, but it would go out of its way to encourage contrary points of view to be stated. I would like to ask any hon. member opposite whether he can point to a single broadcast in 1963 where the point of view of any political party other than that of the National Party was heard on any transmission of the S.A.B.C? Just give me one solitary example to show this balance, this impartiality. I challenge them, and I will contribute to any charity that hon. member names if he can prove to any reasonable jury or body of persons that there was one broadcast which truly and objectively gave the point of view of any political party, except the National Party, in 1963.

Tell us about Finkelstein.

The hon. member says I must tell him about Finkelstein. I know what the slant of that kind of remark is, and I am well aware of the intention behind that kind of statement—but then they have been trained to think that way, Sir, and you must forgive them; it is not entirely their fault. The reason why they agree with the kind of views expressed over the radio is found in their own temperament and character. That is why they see nothing wrong in the speeches made by a man called Ivor Benson, to whom the hon. member for Orange Grove referred. Anyone who habitually speaks over the radio can achieve immortality in only one way, and that is by having his speeches printed for posterity. They do not print everybody’s speeches. I have spoken over the radio, but nobody has ever printed a speech of mine. But in the case of Mr. Ivor Benson, we have no difficulty at all in having his speeches left for posterity. [Interjections.] Here you have a series of talks, “Know Your Enemy”, and he points out that the enemy is Communism. Fair enough—but if you, Sir, were to read these speeches, let alone listen to them, you would discover to your surprise that Communism is equated with any point of view that opposes the point of view of the Government, just as we hear in this House when we argue on some aspect of Government policy that someone says, “Communism, Communism”. So he, for example, suggests that the entire population of the U.S.A. have become communists. That is all in his printed talks. I have some of them here. Although I have not heard all of them, I can read them, and so can anyone else. He says this of a friendly country in regard to which we are always screaming about our allegiance and our friendliness, that we belong to the West. But when it comes to denigrating America, we have plenty of time and money on the S.A.B.C. to allow Mr. Benson to do so. He talks about the Bolshies in America, and he talks about the Columbia Broadcasting System, and says in effect that it is a communist organization—and this is one of the three largest television and broadcasting systems in the U.S.A! But further than that, he goes on to say—

He says it is hard to see Communism behind that, but according to the tone in which he says it, and even when you read the words in cold print, he says in effect that this man, the Attorney-General of the U.S.A., is an associate of communists. According to Mr. Benson, the whole of the Government of U.S.A. consists of communists. Then he comes to another aspect of Communism and says in effect that those who are anti-communist are on the one side and those whom he calls the “anti-anticommunists” are on the other side—in other words, those who fight the people who fight Communism. Therefore those who are anti-anti-communist are pro-communist. This is the deadly logic that Mr. Ivor Benson produces, and he is paid to indoctrinate the innocent listeners on this subject. He talks about the anti-anti-communists like the C.B.S. and the New York Times. He refers to the New York Times in another context by saying that it is alleged to be a leading newspaper in New York. This is what I call tendentious comment. In other words, he suggests that it is not a leading newspaper at all. Of course, the fact is that he is talking about the largest television chain in the United States, and when it comes to the New York Times, which he attacks in a very scurrilous way, he says this of a newspaper which is referred to very differently in an official American publication—

Those are the outstanding newspapers in the U.S.A., according to this official publication of the U.S. Government, but through the S.A.B.C. those people who do not know much about newspapers in America are told that the New York Times is a communist organ, and similarly the C.B.S. And if anyone would attempt to correct that impression, I think he would receive short shrift from the S.A.B.C., as I can tell by my own recent experience.

Having had occasion to travel through the U.S.A. last year, I came back with a number of tapes of television and radio programmes which very clearly reflect American opinion and the American point of view, and I offered them to the S.A.B.C. for free use, to show exactly what people in the U.S.A. think of South Africa and what our answer should be; but so far nobody has taken the slightest trouble to avail himself of that opportunity, and I am prepared to give six to four now that these tapes will never be played on the S.A.B.C., because they may represent a point of view contrary to that of the Nationalist Government.

Mr. Speaker, I have such a short time at my disposal that it will unfortunately be impossible for me to deal with all the problems that have been raised here to-day and that is why I shall concentrate on the most important ones. We on this side of the House have often made it very clear that nobody objects to criticism. Nobody objects to justifiable criticism. I think it is the right of every one of us to criticize but where you criticize, particularly where an important institution is concerned, not only inside South Africa but also outside South Africa, it behaves every one of us to make sure of your facts and to make sure that your criticism is justified. It again struck me to-day that the flood of criticism we had was not only unbalanced but based on inaccuracies and on gross misrepresentations. Let me give you a few examples.

Let me start with the last speaker. The hon. member said in so many words that Mr. Benson had supposedly stated in his talks that the Columbia Broadcasting System was a communist organization. But he did not say that. Let me tell the hon. member what Mr. Benson said. Mr. Benson said the peculiar thing was exactly this that there were large institutions, like the C.B.S., in America, a mighty organization, an organization which distributed films like “Sabotage in South Africa” and which distributed it not only in England but made special editions in order to distribute it in the outermost corners of the world—“Sabotage in South Africa” which glorifies communist agitation throughout the world. He went on and said that the C.B.S. had supported Castro while Castro was organizing against his opponent, while a communist was organizing against his Government and that it did everything in its power to promote the case of this communist. Not only did it do this, Mr. Benson said, but the C.B.S. went so far as to send photographers to Cuba where they made films of everything they found favourable—not of the normal things, not of anything that was unfavourable to Castro, but they merely sought out those things that were in Castro’s favour. Mr. Benson said it was peculiar that such a body should promote Communism.

The hon. member also said that Mr. Benson had gone so far as to say that the New York Times was a communist organization, but nowhere does he say anything of the sort. What Mr. Benson did say about the New York Times was that it followed precisely the same policy as the C.B.S. and that it glorified Castro as an “agrarian reformer” and that it had ultimately in that way attuned the American public to view Castro in a favourable light. Now Mr. Benson says this: Is it not peculiar that such a newspaper should promote Communism in a country which is involved in a death struggle with Communism? But then the hon. member for Hospital came here with distorted and untruthful allegations.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “distorted”

I gladly want to withdraw it Sir. I am looking for another word. Then I shall say “slanted”.

On a point of order, the Minister has not withdrawn it.

I withdrew the word. The hon. member for Hospital then issued a challenge. He told me to show him the letters.

That was not what I said.

He asked me how many were in favour of it and how many against it and that he would tell me how many were against it. Let me give the hon. member the facts. Seven hundred letters were received following upon the “Know Your Enemy” series by Mr. Benson, more than in respect of any other programme, and 15 of that number were against it. But let me go further.

The hon. member for Orange Grove adopts the same attitude and I must unfortunately say that he does so annually. Sir, you expect everybody in this House who carries a responsibility to adhere very closely to the truth. I want to give a few examples of how the hon. member has acted. He quoted from what Hugh Rouse is supposed to have said against the S.A.B.C., namely, from a report in the Rand Daily Mail of what Mr. Rouse is supposed to have said to the Junior Chamber of Commerce. But he did not add that two days later Mr. Rouse denied the report in the Rand Daily Mail of what he was supposed to have said and that he pointed out that the Rand Daily Mail had distorted all the important things he had said when addressing the Junior Chamber of Commerce. The hon. member did not tell us that.

Let us go further, Sir. In this respect the hon. member for Orange Grove was a little more reasonable. He said Mr. Benson is supposed to have said—

Well, I must say that is correct; Mr. Benson did say that, but now he says that is not true; he says Benson is telling an untruth if he says they have come under the influence of Communism. Mr. Benson points out at the same time that at Evansten where the World Council of Churches met they refused to pass the following resolution: “There is no affinity between Christianity and atheistic Communism.” They refused; in other words, the Churches refused to express themselves against their arch enemy, Communism. They refused to say that there was no affinity between them. Is that not a very serious charge against those Churches? Is that not proof that that organization is already under communist influence if they refuse to express themselves against their arch enemy, Communism? That is typical of the kind of attack which we get annually from that hon. member and members of the Opposition.

I want to take it further. I shall probably return to a number of specific points at a later stage, but I want to return to an attack made by the other side of the House. I want to refer to the broadcasting of the statements by Mr. Beyers Naude and the Broederbond. The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) has dealt very effectively with that. He pointed out the facts. He pointed out that the programmes of the S.A.B.C. were continually changed. When important events take place the programmes are changed so as to reflect those in the broadcasting service of the S.A.B.C. The complaint is that the S.A.B.C. interrupted its programme at a certain stage in order to broadcast the statements by Mr. Beyers Naude and the Broederbond. The hon. member for Orange Grove rose very proudly to his feet and said as he has repeatedly said in this House: “On what authority did they do it; who gave them authority to do it?” But, as the hon. member for Randfontein has also said, that is simply ordinary procedure. What happened was that the statement by Mr. Beyers Naude and that of the Broederbond were given to Sapa. The S.A.B.C. is a member of Sapa and from the nature of things all the important news consequently come to the S.A.B.C. The S.A.B.C. regarded the statement as important and that evening it can-called a less important musical programme in order to broadcast the two statements. I might just add at the same time that it took them one and a half times as long to read the statement by Mr. Beyers Naude than it took them to read that by the Broederbond.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to refer to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Opposition. Why all this fuss about something which is nothing but ordinary procedure? Mr. Speaker I want to give you the real reasons behind it. Is it not remarkable that they have never as yet objected to the fact that Mr. Beyers Naude’s statement was broadcast? Has the Leader of the Opposition ever, outside or inside this House, objected to it and said that Mr. Beyers Naude’s statement should not have been broadcast; that the programme should not have been interrupted in order to read the statement by Mr. Beyers Naude? No.

Why should he?

But he objects to the fact that the statement by the Broederbond was broadcast and I shall give you the reason, Sir.

Who drew up the statement by the Broederbond?

Nobody knows, it was supplied by Sapa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not get away with it as easily as that. Let me state the position very clearly. For months the entire English-language Press had concentrated on publishing every possible little thing that they could distort against the Broederbond. Columns and columns were devoted to the Broederbond to try to put it in a bad light. Columns and columns were devoted to Mr. Beyers Naude to put him in a very favourable light. This picture was so false and so one-sided that the United Party members and the readers of those papers which support the United Party got the impression that they had a bogey in the Broederbond which they could use to incite the one section of the nation against the other section. The Broadcasting Corporation then came along and gave both sides of the picture, the one side as stated by Mr. Beyers Naude and the other side as stated by the Broederbond. When you read those two statements—and the statement by the Broederbond was never in any respect contradicted by Mr. Beyers Naude—when you compare those two statements, you get a wonderful insight into the whole position. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind you of what has become evident from those statements. In the first place it becomes evident that the objects of the Broederbond are to promote the interests of the Afrikaner nation, the promotion of a national consciousness amongst the Afrikaners and to instill in him a love for his language, religion, traditions, his country and his nation. Those are noble objects. That is the type of noble object which you find in the case of any organization of this nature. I take it that English-speaking people have similar organizations with equally noble objects. We on this side of the House have never yet objected to that. One fact becomes clear from this principle, namely, that the Broederbond promotes the interests of the traditions of the Afrikaner nation and the great tradition of the Afrikaner nation, apart from its language, is the separate continued existence of White and Black. It becomes clear that the main principle underlying the Broederbond is separate development. However another principle becomes clear from these statements by the Broederbond and Mr. Beyers Naude and I want to tell you what that principle is by reading what was said by Mr. Beyers Naude himself. These are the words of Mr. Beyers Naude who has now left the Broederbond, who has turned his back on the Broederbond. His words were—

That was not said by the Broederbond; those words were uttered by Mr. Beyers Naude himself. Mr. Beyers Naude says in his statement that he was a member of the Broederbond for 22 years. He was also chairman of a branch of the Broederbond. In other words, he is somebody with a sound knowledge of the Broederbond; somebody who consequently knows what principles underlie the Broederbond and who accepted all those principles; somebody who knew that the main principle of the Broederbond, apart from the Afrikaans language, was the separate development of White and non-White. Then we had the tragedy and that tragedy was that Mr. Beyers Naude came under the influence of the Liberals. The Liberals thought, rightly or wrongly, that they had a weakling in him, a weakling whom they could use to undermine the principles of the Broederbond and a large section of the Afrikaner nation and the White people of South Africa. They then formed the Christian Institute and used it as an instrument to undermine the leaders of the Afrikaner Churches spiritually, because they knew that if the Afrikaner Churches in South Africa came to fall, a great deal of the power of the White man in South Africa would disappear—not only the power of the Afrikaans-speaking people but the power of the White man in South Africa. In these circumstances it is understandable that one of the first reports issued by the Christian Institute after its establishment was that Soapy Williams, that person who said a year or so ago that “Africa was for the Africans” and that it was only for them to choose when to take Africa over, had stated in America—

“A new spark of hope” that the Black man will be able to be the master in South Africa, and that “new spark of hope” was the Christian Institute. In other words, Mr. Beyers Naude had now become the instrument of the Liberals and of Soapy Williams. All these facts become clearly evident from the statements by the Broederbond and by Mr. Beyers Naude. The tragedy then developed further.

The position as head of the Christian Institute was offered to Mr. Beyers Naude. As chairman of one of the branches of the Broederbond he went to the home of the secretary of his branch and while the secretary was away he removed all the documents and handed them over to a bitter enemy of the Broederbond, a man by the name of Professor Geyser. His excuse was that he did so in order to get advice. But that excuse of his does not explain why he also gave the names of all the members to Professor Geyser and that notwithstanding the fact that he had taken an oath when he became a member, and had confirmed that oath, to keep all the documents of the Broederbond secret because he knew that the minute it became known that somebody was a member he was persecuted just as these members always try to persecute Afrikaner members of the Broederbond. Attempts are always made to belittle them. That is the reason why it is kept secret. Mr. Beyers Naude, did not hesitate, however, to go so far as to hand over all his friends to the mercy of those people. I ask myself this question: Had a member of the Freemasons done that or had a member of the United Party caucus done that, had somebody like that secretly handed over their secret documents, documents which could harm them, to an enemy, what judgment would they have pronounced on such a person? They would have despised him. Nobody would have had a good word to say about that person. Let me go further. I want to refer to everything that is apparent from these documents. Shortly after wards, in spite of the fact that Mr. Beyers Naude had resigned from the Broederbond, he was chosen as moderator of the Southern Transvaal Synod. Mr. Speaker, do you not find that remarkable? Had the Broederbond been an organization which, as it is alleged, interfered with the election of members to other bodies, how did it come about that the Broederbond allowed Mr. Beyers Naude who had turned his back on them and become a liberal, to become moderator of the Southern Transvaal Synod? Is that not proof that the Broederbond does not interfere in matters of that kind? Surely that is proof positive. But did any member opposite take the trouble of pointing this out? Let me go further. Do you know what Mr. Beyers Naude did then? He received a letter from the chairman of the Broederbond congratulating him on his election and then he replied to the chairman—all this is revealed in this statement—stating that he would observe the oath of secrecy he had taken. Here we have a man who says he will observe his oath of secrecy while he had already, a few days previously, handed over the documents to an enemy of the Broederbond for publication. That is Mr. Beyers Naude. My question is this: Why is the United Party and the Leader of the United Party and the United Party Press still continuing to side with Mr. Beyers Naude and placing the side of the Broederbond in a bad light? There must be a reason for that.

Debate having continued for 2½ hours, the motion lapsed in terms of Standing Order No, 30 (4).

I move—

You will see, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is couched in wide terms. We ask for an investigation into all branches of the agricultural industry. By this we do not wish to suggest that all the various branches of the agricultural industry are experiencing difficulty, but we have framed the motion in wide terms so that hon. members, particularly hon. members opposite, will have the opportunity of discussing any branch of the farming industry. We realize that there are certain branches of the industry, for example, the sugar industry, the wine industry and the wool industry, which are not so badly off, although even they in my opinion are not enjoying their rightful share of the prosperity of the country. I believe that even their income does not compare favourably with the income of many other branches of our economy. There are undoubtedly many farmers in our country to-day who are not receiving their rightful share of the economic prosperity that we are experiencing to-day. The position of the farmer is at best always uncertain. He runs the risk of droughts; he has to run the gauntlet of floods and hail and diseases and pests and we are so inclined, when we talk about the farmer’s income, just to think of the good years and not to take into consideration the many bad years that the farmer has to contend with.

What did the United Party do?

When this Government came into power the position of the farmer was far better than it is to-day. There are of course those farmers who have large farming units, who do not have mortgages and who therefore do not have to bear the burden of interest payments. They make a good living but they are very much in the minority. It is the small scale farmers and the farmers who have heavy debts who are experiencing difficulty in the country to-day.

Mr. Speaker, the farming population is of the most vital importance in our national life. Apart from the value of the role that they play in the economic sphere, they play a very important part in our national character. I am sure that I cannot put it any better than the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development put it recently when he opened the congress of the South African Agricultural Union. On that occasion he had the following to say (translation.)—

The Report of the Commission on the Depopulation of the Platteland also reported in the same vein. They emphasized the great value of a large and strong farming population in our country and in our national life. That is why it is our duty to ensure that the farming community remains as strong as possible both numerically and economically. By this we do not mean that the man who is an inefficient farmer and who is a failure must be kept on the platteland at all costs. If he is inefficient he must make way for a man who can farm efficiently.

The small man must go!

There we have it again that the small man must go; that is the policy of the Government. We have heard it over and over again. This is not something that we are hearing now for the first time. We have been hearing it said now for the past few years that the small man must go. If he farms efficiently then he is of just as much importance in our national life and in our whole economy as the large-scale farmer is. The small-scale farmer is just as important and we must do everything that we can to keep the small-scale farmer on the farm provided that he farms efficiently, and if the large-scale farmer cannot farm efficiently then he must make way for the man who can farm efficiently. But the present tendency is that he does not make way for another farmer; he makes way for a Black man. That is what is happening to-day and that is what we must put a stop to. We must do everything we can to keep our farming population as strong as possible.

This report to which I have already referred points out that over a period of years before the report was submitted, the farming population decreased by 28,000 and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs said recently that over the next five years there would continue to be a decrease. In other words, we are faced with the prospect of having an ever-decreasing farming population and an ever-increasing number of Bantu on the farms. Mr. Speaker, the farmer does not leave his farm to move to the city simply because he can make a nicer living there. He leaves his farm because economic factors compel him to do so. If he is not forced to leave his farm he will not do so. There are too many farmers to-day who are experiencing difficulty, farmers who find it extremely difficult to make a reasonable living. As my authority for this I refer to the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) and what he said here in this House two years ago.

But he is a “boere-hater”.

I spoke the truth; you talk nonsense. That is the difference.

The hon. member spoke the truth when he said that the farmers in this country were experiencing difficulty to-day. That is the truth. The position to-day is that production costs are rising and that prices are falling. I have here a statement that was made the other day by Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers, President of the South African Agricultural Union. This is an important statement. He said that (translation.)—

The income of the agricultural industry continues to decrease in comparison with those of other economic industries.

Which produce prices have fallen?

The price of milk was recently reduced.

What about maize?

Maize prices were reduced two years ago.

What happened last year?

Last year the price was raised slightly. The prices of certain agricultural products have increased but they have not risen in proportion to the increase in the production costs, and it is for that reason that our farmers are experiencing difficulty. We are producing more and more to-day because we are using better methods. The volume of production rose last year by 5 per cent, but the price of agricultural products rose by 3.8 per cent only.

In other words, prices did rise.

Yes, they did increase generally. The price of wool rose and the price of sugar rose. The price of wine also rose, but those are branches of the industry in which as I have already said things are going well. If one looks at the income tax paid by the farmers it is clear that conditions in the farming industry are deteriorating. In 1957-58, 17 per cent of the farmers operated at a loss. Three years later 23 per cent were operating at a loss. In other words, things have deteriorated. Mr. Cilliers, who is now the Director of the South African Agricultural Union, made the following remarks in November 1962 during a talk for organized farmers …

He is a good man.

We all agree with the hon. member; Mr. Cilliers is a good man. If he were not a good man I would not quote him. He said [translation]—

The farmer in this country is not receiving his rightful share of the prosperity that we are enjoying in our country to-day. According to the report of the Land Bank, mortgages increased from 1961 to 1962 by R7,000,000. I take it that it is possible that certain mortgages were taken over from other institutions by the Land Bank and that the figure rose so sharply because of this fact. But what is the position in connection with arrear installments? In 1961 the amount was R3,800,000 and a year later the amount was R4,529,000, an increase of almost R750,000. The amount in respect of arrear mortgage loans was almost doubled. In 1961 the amount was R736,000 and in 1962, R1,453,000.

What is the present position?

There is no later report but the position has not improved. The arrear debt of the farmers has continued to increase over the past four or five years. The farmers have always been proud of the way in which they have repaid their debts. There have been few cases in the past where the farmers have not fulfilled their obligations in this connection. Under present circumstances, however, they find it all the more difficult to meet their commitments towards the State. We read in that report that 76 farms were sold by the Land Bank in 1961 and 93 in 1963. Nearly 50 per cent more farms were sold in 1963 than in 1961. Maize production increased by 62 per cent and the net value by only 32 per cent. Agricultural production increased generally by 25 per cent from 1954 but the gross value by only 20 per cent, although production costs increased by about 49 per cent. So we can see how the position of the maize farmer has also deteriorated.

The position of the maize farmer!

I do not think that the hon. member for Cradock knows very much about maize. I am not trying to suggest that I know a great deal about it but I think that he knows just as little as I do. Two years ago the price of maize was reduced by 27½ cents per bag when the crop amounted to about 60,000,000 bags. The price was raised slightly last year when the crop was about the same. [Interjections.] That strengthens my argument. I did not want to express it in that way. The maize price is higher to-day. In other words, they failed hopelessly in the previous year when they made the price too low. When they saw that the price was too low they raised it. They made a completely wrong estimate and robbed the farmer of the share that he should have had. Mr. Speaker, this year maize is being sold abroad at a far better price. We know that profits have been made on some of the sales. I hope that the farmers will be paid an “agterskot”. I can go on in this way. The poultry farmer is also experiencing difficulty. Things are not going too badly with the large-scale poultry farmer but the small-scale farmers are experiencing difficulty. The lucerne farmer is experiencing difficulty. Along the Orange River the lucerne farmers have failed in large numbers because a maximum price was the only price fixed for them. The tobacco farmer is experiencing difficulty. The small-scale tobacco farmer is leaving his farm and seeking work elsewhere. The canning industry is experiencing difficulty. Let me read out these headlines: “Hardship for the Canning Industry predicted”, says Mr. J. F. Krone, chairman of the Apricot and Peach Growers’ Association. “Future of Deciduous Fruit Uncertain”. What is the position of the milk farmer? The milk farmer is experiencing very great difficulty to-day. Prices were lowered and production costs increased.

The price was increased.

The price was increased but not to the same extent as the production costs rose. Why was the price originally reduced? The price was reduced because there was a surplus. The price was then reduced to such an extent that the farmers could not make a living and stopped producing. Because the farmers stopped producing the price was increased to encourage them to start producing again. Two years ago when we had a surplus production of milk, the following article appeared in the S.A. Friesland Journal (translation)—

And then, because there was a surplus they reduced the price and so made the position of the milk farmer untenable.

But the State did contribute R2,500,000.

We are grateful for the amount that the State has contributed. It is still paying a subsidy. That is quite correct but the State is not contributing enough. The State is not contributing enough to enable the farmer to make a living. What do we find to-day? Mr. Crous, President of the East Coast Agricultural Union had the following to say the other day in Port Elizabeth (translation)—

When the trade could not make a profit the farmer’s price was cut. The trade had to receive its 10 per cent but it did not matter what the farmer received! Yesterday we read in the Press that about milk prices would be increased by the trade. The trade says: I have now to pay 2 cents for every cheque deposited;

I cannot come out; I am going to raise my price.

What is the solution?

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Cradock stops asking “What is the solution”, we will find the solution. Now milk prices are being raised by the trade but the farmer will have to look after himself. He cannot make do on the price that he is receiving to-day. Here is another headline: “Serious crisis in the Milk Industry as a result of low prices”. “Milk Shortage likely. The President of the East Griqualand Dairy Farmers’ Association claims that they are losing 2 cents per gallon”. I can continue in this way. Mr. de Villiers had this to say recently (translation)—

That is the position of the milk farmer. Industries are protected. If we want to establish an industry in this country that industry is protected against competition from abroad. That is quite correct but it should not be protected at the expense of the farmers. It should not be protected because it has to be fed cheaply and the farmer should not have to pay for it. The consumer, not the farmer, must be subsidized in order to keep the price of food as low as possible.

We are told that higher technical and economic efficiency is the solution. That is quite right. That is what we need. We must farm more efficiently. But in order to do so we do of course need people to convey this information to the farmers. [Interjection.] I shall probably again be told all about the war and how Grootfontein was closed, but I do not have the time to deal with those matters now. There has to be greater efficiency. The Government has to ensure that the necessary technicians are available to disseminate this information. There is a shortage of trained technologists everywhere we look. The Northwestern Development Union stated in Beaufort West the other day that there is a very great shortage of veterinarians. That shortage is continuing in all respects; it is not being met adequately. I know that the Department is creating posts but that shortage is continuing and we do not have the technicians to give the farmers the necessary information to enable them to farm more efficiently.

I have said that industries are being assisted. The Government is responsible for the present difficult position in which the farmers find themselves. The Government is responsible for the fact that we have surpluses to-day. The Government is responsible for the fact that we are not enjoying an increased consumption of all products. The Government is responsible for the fact that the farmers are not flourishing. The Government is responsible because we do not have an additional 1,000,000 White consumers to-day. The Government is responsible for the fact that large-scale industrial development has not taken place in our country. The Government is responsible for the fact that the purchasing power in regard to products is not far larger and the Government is responsible for this fact in that it did not follow the immigration policy of the United Party. If this side of the House had been in Government, the White population would now have numbered an additional 1,000,000. Then there would have been great industrial development in the country; then the purchasing power of the public would perhaps have been twice as large as it is to-day; then there would not have been surpluses and then the position of the farmer would have been just as sound as that of the other population groups to-day. For these reasons we want to move that a commission be appointed to make a thorough investigation into what has to be done to give the farmer his rightful share in the economic revival that we are experiencing in this country.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) wandered about to such an extent that I did not know what he was trying to say. I want to give an example. The hon. member mentioned a number of matters and he said that the Government was responsible for all those things although a few minutes earlier he had quoted the President of the South African Agricultural Union as saying that the Reserve Bank report indicated that there was progress in the industrial sphere and in the commercial sphere. He forgot that he had referred to this fact and then he said that the Government was responsible because there was no progress in the industrial sphere. The hon. member continued to contradict himself in this way.

Mr. Speaker, when we analyse the hon. member’s motion and his speech we find that there is one important question that has to be answered and that is: Are the United Party trying to avoid the provisions of the Marketing Act? Do the United Party no longer accept the Marketing Act as the machine that takes proper care of the farmer? The hon. member for Gardens spoke about the decrease in the price of maize. It is a dangerous thing for that party to speak about a decrease in the price of maize because notwithstanding the fact that the control board and the marketing board recommended an increase in the price when the United Party were in power, an increase based on the formula under the Marketing Act, the United Party reduced the price. The hon. member for Gardens should not have raised that matter. The present Government is continuing to apply the provisions of the Marketing Act in regard to the recommendation of prices based on production costs plus an entrepreneur’s wage and has never deviated from it. Now the hon. member for Gardens wants to quote the price of maize as an example. The question is: Is that party trying to avoid the provisions of the Marketing Act? I want to mention another example. The hon. member for Gardens said that the hon. member for Cradock and the Government had said that the small-scale farmers had to go. He wanted to make propaganda in the country by making that remark. Does the hon. member not know that in the years 1929-39 the Department of Lands, which played a most important part in establishing the small-scale farmers, experienced a 33¼ per cent failure on the part of those people who had been granted land? Does the hon. member not know that between 1939 and 1948 when they were in power, 12.3 per cent of the small-scale farmers whom they placed on the land were failures? It was only from 1948 to 1960 that the position improved and that the number of failures dropped to 4.1 per cent. That was the way the United Party looked after the small farmer. The hon. member must not accuse the Government of saying that the small farmer has to leave. It has been this Government primarily that has taken care of the small farmer. When we speak of a small farmer we mean that man with a small piece of land who can produce economically on that small piece of land.

Do the large-scale farmers have to go then?

No farmer has to get out. It is the United Party that are leaving, just as they are now leaving Natal. As far as we know, those are the only people who are leaving.

When I analyse this motion of the hon. member for Gardens I find that it reflects one thing and one thing only—a lack of confidence in the organized farmer; a lack of confidence in the South African Agricultural Union; a lack of confidence in all the commodity divisions of the South African Agricultural Union like the National Wool Growers’ Association and others. The South African Agricultural Union has always been acknowledged and respected by the Government as being the spokesman of the farmer and the body that puts the case of the farmer in the right way and with the necessary responsibility. But that is not all. The South African Agricultural Union and, as it happened, the United Party, together with the wholehearted co-operation of other parties, was the originator of the Marketing Act as we know it today. This is the machine that is the appointed channel of assistance to the farmer in our economic set-up. The United Party want a Commission of Inquiry. Have they ever put their ear to the ground to try to find out the views of the South African Agricultural Union in this regard? Can they point out one place to us in regard to which the South African Agricultural Union and its commodity division has said: Do away with the Marketing Act; do away with the control boards? Is it not a fact—I want the hon. member to reply to me in this regard that organized agriculture in South Africa makes use of that spokesman and recognizes it as means of assisting to set up the control boards under the Marketing Act and to tell the control boards about the problems of the farmers and how the farmers’ products should be marketed and what the price level should be? Do the farmers not make use of that spokesman to put their case to the Department and the Government? No, the hon. member for Gardens now tries to run away from them. He has no confidence in them. It is convenient for him to quote the President and the Director of the Agricultural Union and to do so out of context in order to win a debating point. It appears to me that the United Party have no option. They no longer have any representatives from the platteland in that party. Gardens and Green Point now have to put their case on agriculture for them. They have to get people from Hillbrow and East London (City) to put their case for them. That party no longer has its finger on the pulse of agriculture in the Republic. That party is no longer accepted by the farmers and by the platteland. Now people from the urban areas have to put their case on agriculture for them. This is the reason why their case is such a poor one. Their whole case points to a lack of confidence in the farmers’ organizations in South Africa. I wonder what the members of the congress of the Agricultural Union will say when they hear how little notice is taken of them by this so-called official Opposition?

Because this is the case, I want to move the following amendment to the motion—

And confidence in the Broederbond.

Hon. members there only have a Sustersbond; they do not have a Broederbond. I feel sorry for them, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Gardens, strangely enough—and when the Budget debate comes along hon. members opposite must remember this—acknowledged the phenomenal prosperity that we are experiencing in South Africa. He made quotations to show that we are experiencing a wonderful era of prosperity in South Africa but that the farmer was not receiving his rightful share of it. Of course, they cannot do otherwise but admit that there is this prosperity because every economist or industrialist or banking institution of repute is of the same opinion. Now they say that agriculture has been stagnating. Let us analyse the true position in regard to agriculture. If we look at the value of our farm production we find that in 1948 it amounted to R376,000,000. In 1962-3 it had risen to R882,000,000, two and a half times the 1948 figure. If we take the index figure for the period 1947 to 1950 at 100, we find that it was 95 in 1948 and 223 in 1962-63. In other words, no person has the right to say that agriculture has stagnated. Agricultural production has increased and it has increased at the same dynamic and phenomenal speed as has the economy of South Africa. Hon. members must not try to take matters out of their context. We frankly admit that the value of the other products has increased to a larger extent and that the percentage of agricultural production of the whole economy of the country dropped from 13.5 to 10.1. This is true but it does not give the true picture. We must remember that in every country in the world that is developing industrially, that is experiencing an industrial revival as South Africa is, the balance must gradually change. When we go back 50, 60 or 70 years we find that agriculture was the largest source of income to South Africa. But as a country develops industrially, the pendulum swings and gradually industries become a larger source of revenue. But when we reduce the position to individuals and investigate the circumstances of the workers in industry and in the building industry and in labour and in the Railways, and we analyse their income per head and compare it with that of the farmer, we find that the farmer has no cause for complaint and hon. members opposite have no cause for complaint either. If they do complain they will be causing agitation amongst the farmers and they will make the farmers dissatisfied by quoting figures that are not correct. Hon. members should not argue in this way.

I say again that this motion is nothing less than a motion of no confidence in organized agriculture, in the bodies that are the spokesmen of the farmers, in the bodies that are recognized, in the bodies that look after the marketing of the farmers’ products. It is a motion of no confidence in the Marketing Act. I think of the hon. member for Cradock. He has always said that the Marketing Act is the Magna Charta of the farmer. That is his opinion of the Marketing Act. The United Party must tell us whether they are trying to avoid the provisions of the Marketing Act by means of this motion. What is the position of the farmer? We have 17 control boards under the Marketing Act which control 73 per cent of our agricultural products. The organized farmers have set up those control boards to control the marketing of 73 per cent of their products. I want to give a few examples to show how the farmer himself exercises that control. Let me take the Potato Board with its 18 members. Eight of them are appointed by agricultural unions—a complete majority for agriculture. Take the Wheat Board with its 21 members. Eight of them are appointed by the farmers’ own co-operatives and three are appointed by the agricultural union. In other words, 11 plus the three representing the millers—and many of the small-scale millers are also farmers—give the farmers a complete majority there as well. I can also refer to the Mealie and Kaffir Corn Board. Of the 21 members of the Board six are nominated by the co-operative producers, six by the agricultural unions to represent the non-co-operative producers and one by the producers of stock feed. In other words, of the 21 members, 13 are appointed by the farmer in order to look after the interests of the mealie and kaffir-corn farmer. No wonder the hon. member for Gardens told the hon. member for Cradock that he also knows nothing about maize because if he had known something about maize he would not have used maize as an example. This was an unfortunate example as far as the United Party was concerned because they should be ashamed of themselves for what they did in regard to maize. This proves that the farmers themselves are responsible for the actions taken by these respective control boards. In other words, the organized farmer ensures, through the South African Agricultural Union that the price level of his products is carefully watched. Do the United Party maintain that these boards are too incompetent to look after the interests of the farmers? Is that what their motion means? Or do the United Party say that the South African Agricultural Union is too weak to select the right people and nominate the right people to sit on these boards? That is all that this motion can mean. I said that 73 per cent of the farmers’ products are marketed by these boards and marketed according to a sound formula that is accepted by South Africa, the Departments and by all parties as the only sound economic and practicable formula to give the farmer stability and security for the future as we see it. And now the United Party is running away from it! Sir, there are other products. Seventeen per cent of farmers’ products are dealt with in terms of special laws, such as the Sugar Act and the law in connection with the wine industry. Are things going badly with these people? Things have never been better for the sugar farmers in South Africa than they are at the moment, and the same thing holds good for the wine farmer. These people are satisfied. When one tries to buy a small piece of land in the wine-producing areas one finds that one cannot buy it for R2,000 per morgen. In other words, 73 per cent of our agricultural produce is marketed by the Marketing Board and 17 per cent under special laws. Only 9 per cent or 10½ per cent of our agricultural produce is not under control. That is why I say that this motion is to my mind nothing less than a motion of no confidence in the organized farmer in South Africa. I think that it is time that the South African Agricultural Union realized this fact because I think that it is an unforgiveable sin. It encourages those people who stand coldly and aloofly towards organized agriculture to continue acting in that way and to ride on the back of the South African Agricultural Union. I think that I can say without fear of contradiction in this House to-day that most of the advantages that the farmer in South Africa has received have been due to the fact that the farmers have been united in an organized fashion in the South African Agricultural Union and have through that agricultural union received the right to elect the right people to the control boards to handle the products of the farmer there.

The hon. member tried to make out a case for saying that the solution was better methods of farming, better technical and scientific farming, and so forth. I want to ask him whether the United Party can give us an example of where the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing or the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, or of Water Affairs or of Lands or the State Advances Recoveries Office or the Land Bank—which renders enormous financial assistance—has ignored the South African Agricultural Union. Has not the opposite been the case—that they have continued to co-operate and that the South African Agricultural Union has at every congress that it has held adopted a motion of thanks in which it has not only thanked the Departments but congratulated them on the wonderful work that they are doing and the manner in which they are promoting the interests of agriculture? At those congresses they have congratulated the Departments on their ability to adjust themselves to circumstances and have thanked the Government and the Departments for the timeous steps taken to overcome possible problems. We have never said that things are going well with all the farmers because we do not have control over droughts and foot and mouth disease and because we have no control over hail storms and other natural disasters.

This Government realizes only too well, as do the control boards, that the risks the farmer runs are entirely different from those run by the ordinary industrialist and manufacturer, and, because this is so, we have this specific formula under the Marketing Act which does not summarily fix a price without having regard to a possible profit but takes the position over the past year into consideration, the question of production costs, the question of the costs of containers and that sort of thing, and on this basis works out the price for the next year. These control boards that are under the supervision of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and which do this work on the advice of the Department, have continued to keep one fact in mind and that is that what the farmer in South Africa asks for is security, and security for the farmer means that he must be assured of a price for his product in the future. Because this is so these control boards have built up a stabilization fund to give the farmers the necessary security. A stabilization fund amounting to R57,845,000 has already been built up amongst these 17 control boards. If we add the fund for wool we find that the figure is more than R82,000,000. This is a nest-egg for the producer and gives him a feeling of security for the future. The hon. member for Gardens with the support of his party, said: I do not trust organized agriculture. They do not recognize organized agriculture as the spokesman of the farmers; they do not trust it. This motion asks for an inquiry. Why does the motion not mention investigation into specific matters—we have these control boards; we have the South African Agricultural Union that is investigating these matters from day to day. They have their special study committees and the committees submit formulated and motivated proposals to the congresses of the South African Agricultural Union after those proposals have been submitted to the provincial congresses and to the commodity conferences. Those proposals eventually become the subject of a congress resolution and that congress resolution is submitted to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services or the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, or whatever Department may be involved, and those resolutions are then given effect to as far as possible. If they cannot be implemented, the Government and its Ministers have always been honest enough to state frankly: This proposal is not practicable. I want to say this to the hon. member for Gardens: Mention one of these subjects that you want to have specifically investigated and that the Departments have not yet given their attention to. The hon. member is silent because we no longer get roses from the Gardens, only weeds!

The farmer must be given his rightful share in the prosperity of South Africa.

I do not want to weary the House with statistics. I have already said that the increase in the value of agricultural production is keeping pace with the increase in the economic development of South Africa, reduced to a per capita level. When we look at the percentage contributions of the most important economic sectors to our net internal production, we find that the figure for agriculture, forestry and fisheries stood at 13.2 per cent in 1955-56, climbed to 14.1 per cent and then started dropping to 11.4 per cent, 11.3 per cent, 11.1 per cent until to-day it is 10.7 per cent, while the figure for mines which was 12.5 per cent rose to 13.5 per cent. This has not happened because the mines receive more but because the volume has increased to such an extent and because the mines have to accommodate and feed and remunerate so many more people. When we look at the figure for industry, we find that it was 23.9 per cent in 1955 and that it is now 24.1 per cent. Does the hon. member contend that the factories in South Africa should stagnate or should expand just as slowly as possibly agriculture? Does the hon. member not realize that because of the thousands of immigrants, whom they so much want, because of the great labour campaign that is in operation to-day, it is not possible to absorb everyone in agriculture; they have to be absorbed in industry and in the factories, and once they have been absorbed into those spheres of activity, the percentage income in those spheres of activity increases. Hon. members must see the picture in its true perspective and be realistic.

I want to conclude by saying that the various departments concerned with agricultural matters have ensured that the farmer has kept pace with the rest of South Africa. For that reason this motion is nothing less than a motion of no confidence in organized agriculture in South Africa, and I move my amendment accordingly.

If I correctly followed what the hon. member said, then I must say that I have seldom listened to a speech in which so much nonsense was uttered and in which there was so little substance. He challenges the United Party and says that it is running away from the Marketing Act and that it is expressing a lack of confidence in organized agriculture and in the South African Agricultural Union. Mr. Speaker, it has been clearly stated time and again that this Opposition believes just as strongly as the Government does that the Marketing Act is the Magna Charta of the farmer and we believe that the Marketing Act has done wonders to stabilize our agricultural industry. But we also know that within the broad framework of Government policy and in an attempt to keep the cost of living as low as possible, it is the policy of the Government, in respect of products and commodities which are only consumed locally and the surplus production of which is not exported abroad, to keep prices as low as possible, because otherwise the cost of living will rise. They want a low and balanced price. If the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) does not know this then I wonder what he does know. The hon. member says that the 17 control boards are doing wonderful work. I agree. But does the hon. member not know that through the control boards, supported by the South African Agricultural Union and the commodity committees, prices are often recommended to the Government which are not adopted by the Government? Does the hon. member not know that? Why then does he talk about agricultural matters? He knows that this sort of thing is happening all the time. He also knows that in 1962 the maize price which was fixed by this Government was not the price recommended by the Maize Board …

Where do you get that from?

… just as little as the meat price which is recommended from year to year is always the reserve price fixed by the Government.

The hon. member said that this motion was tantamount to an accusation against organized agriculture, a motion of no confidence in organized agriculture. Sir, this side of the House is not afraid to approach organized agriculture and to say that we want a commission of inquiry to be appointed to determine why the farmer is not being given his rightful share in the prosperity of our country. I should have no hesitation in approaching the South African Agricultural Union and telling them that we have moved a motion of this nature. I predict that the South African Agricultural Union will welcome a commission of this kind.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom quoted statistics here. He preferred to mention the figures for 1948 and then he suddenly jumped to 1963. That is his way of quoting statistics.

I quoted figures for 1955.

He may perhaps have squeezed in 1955, but the hon. member spoke so softly that I could not hear him very well. Let me give him a little assistance. What has the position been in regard to agricultural production over the past four years? What was the difference between 1962 and 1963? In 1962 the gross value of our total agricultural production was R854,000,000, and in 1963 this figure rose to R882,000,000. The point that I want to make is that from 1962 to 1963 there was an increase of R32,000,000 in the gross value of agricultural products. But that increase of R32,000,000 can be ascribed entirely to the increased prices for wool and sugar and two other commodities. In other words, from 1962 to 1963 the gross value of agricultural products rose by scarcely one cent. And if it did not rise by one cent, what was the position in commerce? Was it equally static? Can we honestly say that the farmer is receiving his rightful share in the economic upsurge and that he should be quite satisfied?

That is not the point.

I maintain that the agricultural industry has not received its rightful share; that the capital invested in agriculture is subject to most risks in this country. There is no other industry in which one invests one’s capital which is as vulnerable to drought, hail and pests and so forth and which is exposed to as many risks as the agricultural industry. If it were not for the appreciation in the value of the farmer’s property over the years, together with the improvements that he has effected, farming would not have been profitable. Farming does not pay the dividend or interest that one ought to draw on one’s investment. It has not paid for the last five years and it will not pay. The farmer would not be able to continue farming if his capital investment did not appreciate. This capital appreciation has slowed down considerably over the past year or two and every practising farmer opposite knows that this is true. We know that from 1950 to 1961 the appreciation in the value of property was considerable.

What about 1962 to 1963?

You will find that in 1960 the capital appreciation in the case of agricultural small holdings was less than it was during the preceding ten years. A property purchased in 1955 had almost doubled in value by 1962. There may have been an increase from 1962 to 1963 but it was not at the same rate. The point that I am making is that the rate of capital appreciation has slowed down and it will become slower as the international position deteriorates. If we exclude the increase in the price of wool and the sharp rise in the price of sugar we find that from 1961 the tempo has slowed down considerably. It remains an equally irrefutable fact, as far as commerce and industry and other activities are concerned, that they made rapid progress during that period. Surely then we are entitled to say that in our opinion the farmer has not received his due share in the prosperity of the country and we think that a commission of inquiry will be able to do very good work in this regard. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom challenged us to say which branch of agriculture should be investigated because, after all, there were so many control boards. Those control boards do the best they can.

Why then have an investigation?

Does the hon. member for Cradock want to tell me that things are going well with the perishable fruit and vegetable industry for example? I think he should keep quiet. Indeed, I want to bring this fact to the attention of the hon. the Minister for the umpteenth time. At this stage I am unable to suggest what should be done in regard to perishable fruit and vegetables. This produce is brought to the municipal markets in the large cities. We also have to contend with continual surpluses, and we find that truck-loads, tons of this produce, cannot even be sold. I am not being critical, but some plan must be made to keep the farmers informed and to bring about a balance in the farming industry in an effort to avoid the sort of situation where 500 truckloads of water melons, for which there is no market, find their way to the Johannesburg market in one week. How can the farmers make a living under these circumstances? Hon. members opposite visit the Johannesburg and the Durban markets and other important markets just as often as I do. When I see the boxes of peaches and the boxes of plums and apricots that the farmer has struggled the whole year to produce and then has to struggle to sell, I feel that things cannot go on in this way. The box costs the farmer anything from 5 to 7 cents; the woodwool costs him something and his labour costs him something and then he has to sell at 15 cents per tray. Three weeks ago I saw rows and rows of trays being sold for 15 cents each. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that an inquiry is needed and that this motion is not a motion of no confidence in organized agriculture. This is a motion of no confidence in the Government. A certain amount has been done by the staff available and the organizations that we have but we will have to do better or otherwise agriculture will not make the progress that it should make and it will not receive the share that it should receive in the prosperity of the country. How can we improve the position without having a commission to ascertain in connection with these activities whether the policy of controlling agricultural products to keep the cost of living as low as possible is not being exaggerated; whether some relief cannot be given and, if so, how this can be done? In the second place it must investigate what can be done in connection with the products for which we have no control boards and in regard to which things simply take their course. What can be done in this regard to alleviate the position? I myself was concerned in this. It is not an easy thing to say what should be done in connection with the marketing of perishable products. But something must obviously be done otherwise these farmers will not be able to make a living.

I have no hesitation at all in wholeheartedly supporting the motion of the hon. member for Gardens which asks the hon. the Minister in a friendly way to appoint a commission of this nature. He is not an unreasonable Minister when it comes to agricultural matters. I ask him to accept this motion.

I have never seen the Opposition so much at sixes and sevens as they have been to-day. Here we have a motion which is tantamount to nothing less than a motion of no confidence in organized agriculture. We on this side have always said that we believe in organized agriculture, that the Marketing Act is our Magna Charta as farmers, and what whoever interferes with that Magna Charta interferes with farmers of South Africa. I remember the days when the farmers were not organized; when we had to approach a buyer to pay us the price that he wanted to pay. But it was organized agriculture which made orderly marketing in South Africa possible. That is why we deprecate the fact that hon. members are moving a motion of no confidence in organized agriculture.

No.

They have also moved a motion of no confidence in the boards and in the hon. the Minister in connection with the fixing of prices, according to the hon. member who has just spoken. Of course, he does not have the faintest idea what he is talking about. He has produced evidence to prove his statements that the Government has consistently reduced the proposed prices. The Government has always listened to sound advice and, together with the farmers, has fixed prices in the interests of the farmers. That argument of the hon. member holds no water. I know of many cases where proposals regarding the determination of prices have been accepted by the Government. I predict that this good Government and the Maize Board will continue to look after the interests of the maize farmers. The Maize Board has done a great deal for us and has demonstrated to us this year that maize can be exported. Why then should we investigate that board? It would be tantamount to a motion of no confidence in a board which has done its work well over the years. We also have the Wool Board, a body which has really proved to be the salvation of the wool grower from time to time. The wool growers began as a disorganized group of people but over the years a wonderful organization has been built up. The Wool Board was established by organized farmers and the International Wool Secretariat was brought into being. The wool farmers can be very thankful that they are at least receiving world prices for their wool which they never received under the old United Party Government.

I want to come back for a moment to the question of maize about which those hon. members had so much to say. What did they do in regard to maize? Have they forgotten the days when maize was rotting on the stations under tarpaulins? That was during the period of office of the United Party. Have they forgotten the days when the price of maize was reduced from 21s. to 19s. 3d.? Have they forgotten what happened the year after the war? The price of maize rose and a profit of £5,000,000 was made but the United Party paid the money into the Treasury. It was only when Minister Havenga could take action at a later stage under the National Party Government that part of the money was paid over to the control boards to be kept as a nest-egg on which to build up their future reserves. Can the United Party mention any occasion during their period of office when they did something for the farmers? What did they do? They gave our wool away. The highest price that we ever received for our wool under the United Party, the highest amount for the whole wool clip, was £16,000,000 under the so-called British scheme. In the next year the price rose to £36,000,000. What has the United Party ever done for the farmers? That is why all their members represent urban constituencies. They are trying now to return to the platteland but the farmers know them too well. They say that the farmers are not receiving enough. Let them work out a better scheme. The hon. member made a number of vague statements here, and we still do not know precisely what they want. One can only assume that they are dissatisfied with organized agriculture and with the boards.

They want to change over to the old system that we had under the United Party Government when we had to give our products away. They have no constructive plans for improving the position. I shall be pleased if they can do so although the hon. member made no constructive suggestion. The hon. member said that the agricultural unions would not mind if a commission was appointed. Why should a commission be appointed? The boards are doing good work and the farmers have confidence in them. Does the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman), that great general of the O.B., really think that the farmers will move a motion of no confidence in the agricultural unions and welcome a commission of inquiry into the agricultural industry? That is too ridiculous for words and I do not think he means a word of what he says.

This side of the House stands by organized agriculture and we have full confidence in the agricultural organizations. There is good co-operation. I want to tell hon. members that there are some branches of farming in which prices can be improved, but that can be done through the boards. It cannot be done through the United Party which has no policy. They do not have the slightest idea how to go about it. We reject the sneering remarks which the hon. member made about the small farmers. We on this side will look after the small farmer and ensure that he does not move to the cities as unskilled labour and become a burden there on the State. We will ensure that he is placed on a sound basis. That is why the Government is tackling important schemes like the Orange River scheme which will place thousands of morgen under irrigation and enable the small farmer to make a reasonable living. What have the United Party ever done for the poor man or the small farmer? Nothing. This Government realizes that the platteland is becoming depopulated, but by means of these great schemes which are going to be undertaken and which will continue for the next 30 years, provision will be made for sufficient people to remain on the platteland to feed the cities. That is the policy of our party. It is constructive and it is something of which we will be proud in the future. We on this side have nothing against industrial development. We welcome it because we know that it gives us a market for our products. But this Government has always been a farmers’ Government and it will always protect the interests of the farmers. For that reason we reject the motion of no confidence in the farmers that the United Party have moved here.

Mr. Speaker, it was amusing to listen to the two hon. members on the opposite side who have spoken so far, the hon. members for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) and Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). They reminded me of what the Bible tells us about tinkling cymbals and sounding brass. That was all it amounted to. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom said that it was strange that the hon. members for Gardens (Mr. Connan) and Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) should state the case for the farmers here, but has the hon. member forgotten that he now lives in Volksrust and that he is no longer farming? Has he forgotten that the hon. member for Gardens is one of the leading farmers in the north-west and that the hon. member for Hillbrow is also a practising farmer? It is very easy for a man who has sold the land of his fathers and who now lives in town to discuss farming matters and to try to score political debating points. The hon. member for Cradock has already forgotten how to farm. If he did not have a son to farm for him I do not know what would become of his farm.

Oh no, I farm myself.

He spoke about the time when we had to give our wool away for nothing. Where was that hon. member during the depression when we received 2d. and 4d. for our best wool and when we could not even send our unwashed wool away but had to throw it away because the price we were paid for it was less than the railage that we had to pay? [Interjections.] The hon. member says that that was during the period of office of the United Party. He does not even know in which time we are living. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom said that this Government was the friend of the small farmer and the hon. member Cradock repeated his remarks parrotwise. The friend of the small farmer, and to-day we have 28,000 fewer farmers than we had 10 years ago! The hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs said that 2,400 farmers must leave the platteland every year. He said that the number of farmers was decreasing at the rate of 2,400 per annum, and that in 1968 we would only have 93,000 farmers left out of 128,000. What sort of an argument is this—that things are going so well with the farmer, that this Government is the friend of the farmer and yet the number of farmers decreases? The Nationalist Party conveniently forgets that they are so much a friend of the farmer that even the hon. the Prime Minister had to sell his small farm because he realized that farming was not paying. Hon. members have said that this motion is tantamount to a motion of no confidence in the agricultural unions. Have you ever heard such nonsense? The agricultural unions insist on an enquiry and at every single congress that is held reference is made to the critical position of the farmers. The agricultural unions are doing excellent work. All we need is a better Government and a Minister who realizes that the farmer is a permanent asset to the nation. If only we had a Government which realizes that a farmer has to be a scientist, an economist, an engineer, a manager, an ordinary worker and permanent student! I have here a pamphlet issued by a co-operative society. What does it say? The hon. member for Cradock spoke about maize. It was many years ago that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom last produced a few mealiecobs except for those that he might perhaps still cultivate on his plot. This pamphlet states—

They go on to say on the next page—

The farmer has to combat all these things. I have explained all these things a farmer has to be but he has also to be an insect-killer. I have said that the farmer is an asset to the country and the trustee of the soil, but what is the attitude of the Government to the farmer? All I can imagine is that they hate the farmers. (Laughter.) What does this mean? It means that any agricultural debate in this House degenerates into a political debate. I remember that last year when we discussed the agricultural position in South Africa the Burger stated that agricultural politics had now become Native politics. They said that Mr. Vosloo had told Dr. Moolman that the United Party wanted to adapt South Africa’s policy to the A.N.C. in order to be assured of agricultural surpluses, and Minister Uys agreed with him. No wonder the farmers say that they would rather have the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development as Minister of Agriculture. It was not surprising that they asked him to open the congress of the Agricultural Union this year. These are the signs of the times. The agricultural debate is converted into a debate on Native Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, year after year the hon. member for Wakkerstroom comes and rattles off a series of figures. He simply takes the reports of the Departments of Agriculture and writes down the figures on paper. I noticed that he congratulated one of the officials on having presented such an excellent report on which he was able to base his speech. I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Cradock say that the Government is the best friend the farmer has ever had. We have just had a report tabled in Parliament in terms of which the Government aims to spend R284,000,000 in 10 years on half a million people in South West Africa. Why do they not give our farmers a small share of that money?

You are not talking politics, are you?

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs has said that 2,400 farmers have had to leave the platteland each year. Where can they go and what can they do? [Interjections.] What is the Government doing to prepare them for a new life? But they are willing to spend R248 million in South West Africa on 500,000 people. But what is the Government doing for the White farmers of South Africa? We are continually being told what happened during the period of office of the United Party Government and how maize was given away for nothing, but in those days more people became farmers and they did not leave the land. [Interjections]. Does the hon. the Minister want to deny that we already have 28,000 fewer farmers on the platteland? During the depression the farmers had to build roads under this Government and they received ¾d. per lb. for their unwashed wool. This Government has only one thing to say and that is that the farmers themselves are responsible for it if things do not go well with them. I want to quote what the hon. the Minister said here in this House last year. He said that the best use should be made of our natural resources and manpower. He said that the Government accepted the principle of private enterprise but that no Government could guarantee fixed prices to the farmers, and that if the farmers produced far more of a certain product than could be absorbed by the local market, they would have to be satisfied with the overseas price. He also said that farming operations should be adapted to meet changed conditions. I do not have the time to read everything but I would like to quote the following (translation)—

That is just what I have said for many years. The increased production in agriculture is due to the ability of our farmers and the improved methods which they are applying and which they grasp with both hands if they are given information and guidance. But this is all in spite of the Government. If we had a better Government the farmers would be in a far better position.

Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). What did the hon. member really say? All she did was to fulminate against all and sundry, including the Prime Minister because he sold his farm. She attacked the hon. member for Wakkerstroom because he lives in town. She talked about the report on South West Africa and asked what was being done for the poor farmers. Did the hon. member ever examine the Estimates last year to see how much was being paid out in subsidies on various commodities? Why does she not mention that? What proportion of the administration costs of the control boards is being paid by the State? But the hon. member mentions the report of the South West Africa commission and suggests that that report is scandalous. I leave it at that. Sir, what I found very interesting was the fact that the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) referred to the reasonableness of the Minister. While he was doing so I thought immediately of the motion introduced last year by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) in which he asked that the two Ministers of Agriculture should resign. But to-day the hon. member says that the Minister is very reasonable and he therefore makes his appeal to the Minister. But the second thing which he admits is that economically South Africa is faring well. The hon. member for Gardens says that that prosperity must be shared. Sir, one of the easiest things to do is to propose the appointment of a commission to tackle a task as soon as it becomes a little difficult. The hon. member says that the present prosperity must be shared with the farmers, but he puts forward no proposal. He simply says that a commission should be appointed to investigate the position. Must the consumers be subsidized? No, all he says is that a commission should be appointed.

But to my mind this motion contains another significant admission. It says that farmers who do not farm efficiently must clear out. That is what the hon. member for Gardens said, and I should like to hear from him what he regards as an efficient farmer. I leave it at that. It has become perfectly clear over the years that hon. members on the other side who continually talk about the Marketing Act know little about it or that they have never read the Act. What they read into it is that it is based on the principle of production costs plus a profit. Indeed the hon. member for East London (City) said so. I wonder whether he has ever read the Act. Where does the idea come from that that is the formula of the Marketing Act? The Marketing Act is simply an enabling measure. It gives the Minister the power to do certain things—to appoint boards, amongst other things.

Here I just want to refer again to what was said a moment ago about the mealie price by the hon. member for East London (City). The hon. member stated that the price which was fixed the year before last was not the price which the Maize Board had recommended. I should like to know from him where he obtained that information, because that is not correct. For many years, as far as I can remember, the price recommended by the Maize Board has been accepted by the hon. the Minister. That price is worked out on the cost of production plus entrepreneur’s remuneration.

Why was the price reduced the year before last?

Last year’s price was lower because the levy was increased. That decision was taken by the Maize Board. There are three parties who can supplement any short-fall in the price of maize. One can make the consumer pay more if consumption is not going to be adversely affected by it. But does the hon. member want to tell me that the price of maize to the consumer could have been pushed up further? Is the hon. member prepared to say that?

He is the farmer’s enemy.

We know that the farmers will use highly subsidized meal instead of maize if the price of maize to the consumer rises too high. And we know that the farmers here in the Western Province will fall back on lupins. The second party who can meet the shortfall is the State by way of subsidy. But does the hon. member realize what a high subsidy the State is already paying on maize in comparison with the subsidy paid on other products? The hon. member referred to dairy products. Last year the State increased the subsidy on dairy products by a considerable margin, but in spite of that the State agreed to continue to pay a reasonable amount to the maize industry by way of subsidy. The third party who remains then is the producer himself who is called upon to meet the balance of the shortfall by way of a levy. The year before last the crop was considerably in excess of the estimated figure with the result that the levy funds were exhausted, and that is why the levy had to be pushed up last year by such a large amount.

Why was the price increased last year?

Because there was a smaller loss on export maize. The maize farmer did reasonably well because there was an increase in oversea prices. Freight charges also increased but the increase in the oversea price was bigger than the increase in freight charges. Last year the crop was 62,000,000 and this year the crop is just under 65,000,000. With an increase of 3,000,000 bags the position is reasonably good as far as the maize farmer is concerned. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the producers have full control through their own representatives on the Maize Board. The Board decides what the maize price is to be and submits its recommendation to the Minister for his approval. In that way the producer therefore exercises control over the price. Sir, I think in actual fact the motion of the hon. member is tantamount to one of no-confidence in the agricultural industry and particularly in organized agriculture.

I listened to the case made out by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) in support of his motion that a commission be appointed to enquire into all branches of the agricultural industry in order to determine how the industry can be given its due share in the prosperity of South Africa. In the first place I want to say to the hon. member that he framed his motion in such wide terms that he himself emasculated a portion of it in the early part of his speech, because when he began speaking he said that there were many branches of the agricultural industry which were doing very well.

I did not say “very well.”.

In other words, there are branches of the agricultural industry which have received their due share in the present economic boom.

No, I did not say that they were getting their rightful share. I said they were getting a bigger share in the prosperity of South Africa than other branches of the industry.

The hon. member says that those industries which he mentioned have not been getting their due share either. Must this commission determine the ratio according to which a specific branch of the agricultural industry must be given its due share? Must it be given its rightful share in relation to secondary industries or in relation to the gold mining industry? With which sector of the economy are you going to compare those branches of the agricultural industry which according to the hon. member are doing reasonably well? There are a few industries which the hon. member mentioned which are doing well at the moment. Amongst others he mentioned the wool industry where the greatest portion of our production is exported to countries abroad; in other words, an industry which depends primarily on an export market. The hon. member’s attitude is that the wool industry has not been getting its rightful share in the economic boom in this country. This commission of enquiry is now going to find that the wool industry, in relation to other economic activities, has not been getting its due share. What are we going to do about it? If the commission which he would like to appoint makes such a finding, is his attitude then going to be that such an industry must be subsidized by the State so that it does get its rightful share in the prosperity of South Africa? I should like to hear what the hon. member proposes to do in those circumstances. Let us understand each other clearly. We are now talking about a rightful share for the farmer and how that rightful share can be given to him. It is of no avail simply to institute an enquiry to determine whether a particular industry is getting its due share in the present economic boom. If the commission finds that the industry is not getting its due share, what are we going to do then? Are we then going to say, “Unfortunately it is not getting its rightful share?” or are we going to take steps to enable that industry to obtain its due share? If no steps are going to be taken why institute such an enquiry then? I ask the hon. member what steps can be taken to give such an industry its rightful share in the economic boom. But the hon. member must remember that it is not only wool which is largely an export product. Thirty-five per cent of our agricultural products is produced mainly for the export market, and if it is found that those industries have not been getting their due share in the economic boom then surely no purpose will have been served by the appointment of a commission of enquiry. After all, we know what the circumstances are; we know what their prices are. We ourselves can judge whether those people are struggling or whether they are not struggling. But it is no use knowing all these things if you are not going to take steps to ensure that those industries are given their rightful share. What means can be used if one finds that the income of a certain industry which relies mainly on the export market is not high enough? There is only one method which can be used to ensure that its income is sufficient, and that is the payment of a State subsidy direct to that particular producer. Let us assume that we appoint such a commission of enquiry and that it makes such a finding. Is the hon. member prepared to say and is his Party prepared to say that one should subsidize those branches of the industry which produce mainly for the export market? I should like the Opposition to reply to this. If that is not their attitude, then I want to know what useful purpose such an enquiry can serve.

Such a commission would most certainly make recommendations. It would institute investigations and then make recommendations on the basis of its findings.

Even if it made recommendations, there is only one way in which one can enable the producer of a product, a product which is sold in the markets abroad and which has to compete in the world market, to earn more and that is by subsidizing him.

There is not one way only.

There is no other way. If the hon. member can think of any other way I should like to hear from her what that way is. My question to the Opposition is this: Why should one institute an enquiry to determine whether a specific industry is getting its due share if one is not prepared to say that the Government must use the taxpaper’s money to subsidize that industry? But what tests does one apply to determine whether an industry is in fact getting its rightful share in the prosperity of this country?

What test do we apply to-day to our industries to see whether they are sharing in the present upsurge in our economy? In the first instance one looks at the value of the shares in that industry—whether the value of the shares is decreasing or increasing. Surely that is only logical. Take the agricultural industry over the past few years; we need not go back more than three years. We know how the price of land has risen over the past three years. Such a commission of enquiry will quite possibly find that one of the reasons why certain branches of the agricultural industry are not getting their rightful share in the present economic boom, is to be found in the enormously high prices which are being paid for land in South Africa. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition to mention one single branch of farming in South Africa in which there has not been a consistent rise in the price of land in recent years.

There has been a general rise in land prices.

The hon. member says that there has been a general rise in the price of land. Let us assume that this commission finds that one of the reasons why the farming industry is not receiving its rightful compensation is the unduly high capital investment in land. Let me put a second question. Let us assume that the commission finds that the reason why the farmer is not getting a good income is because his interest on his capital investment, particularly his land, is too high. Do hon. members of the Opposition want the State to intervene then and to say, “We are going to lay down the prices to be paid for land …”? [Interjections.] Hon. members must give me a chance now. They are looking for a solution; I am also looking for a solution. Let us understand each other clearly. Let us keep this matter outside the political sphere. If that commission finds that one of the reasons why certain industries are not making sufficient profit is that their capital investment is too high, would the hon. member be prepared then to say that we must peg the price of land in South Africa?

Of course not.

No, of course not. Let us deal now with the proposition which I advanced here previously and which the hon. member has just criticized here, namely that our agricultural policy rests on certain bases. One of the most important bases on which it rests is that it operates in a free economy; it forms part of a free economy. A second important foundation on which it rests is that the farmer operates under a system of free enterprise, and he therefore decides, according to the markets offering for the various products, what he is prepared to pay for his land, what he is going to produce on it and how he is going to farm it.

The same story.

The hon. member says that that is the same story. If she will only listen she will be able to give me her reply, if she wants to reply, but instead of that she sits there cackling like a hen.

Like a broodhen.

Order!

The fact remains that if the Government is expected to ensure at all times that certain people or certain branches of the agricultural industry are able to share fully in the upsurge in the economic sphere whether they are producing an export product or a product sold in the domestic market, then the Government will not be able to allow the farmer to operate under a system of free enterprise. Because what determines one’s profits? It is not the way in which one farms. The most important factor which determines one’s profits is one’s capital investment in land. I have already asked, in the case of export products, what one could do if such a commission were to find that a particular industry was not getting its rightful share in the prosperity of this country. Now I want to refer to products which are controlled internally but many of which will gradually have to compete on the export market as far as the surplus portion of the production is concerned. If that commission were to find that in these other industries, such as our wheat industry or our maize industry, the farmers are not getting their due share in the economic boom—and I accept and admit that there are certain branches of our agricultural industry which have not benefited to the same extent from the present economic upsurge as many of our other industries—if that commission were to make such a finding, we would still be faced with the same problem, and that is that we would be dealing with a product which is produced by our farmers and for which we must find a market internally. We have had a very big maize crop over the past few years. We know that at the price which the consumer is asked to pay, a certain quantity of that maize can be sold in the domestic market. More than that quantity one cannot sell. The maize is available and if the consumer is prepared to pay more, then one can sell more. How can one sell more to him? In order to try to place the farmer in a better position a portion of the production has to be exported or one has to sell more maize at that higher price. What are the methods which one can use to improve the farmers’ position? We come back to precisely the same problem, and that is that the State will have to intervene by paying a subsidy to ensure that the farmer gets his rightful share in the economic boom.

I do not think that the hon. member who moved the motion made out a good case for the appointment of a commission to investigate these things. The case which he tried to make out, as the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) has already proved, is common knowledge; it is known to all the various organizations in our agricultural industry. These things which are taking place in the agricultural industry are not unknown; it is not unknown that certain branches of the agricultural industry are not doing as well as other branches It is not unknown either that some of our farmers are having a more difficult time than others as a result of climatic conditions. Nor is it unknown that there are fewer farmers in agriculture to-day than there were 30, 20 or 10 years ago. It is a tendency which began to manifest itself many years ago. These are facts which are generally known and they require no investigation. But the fact remains that if we want to rectify those things then we must alter our basic agricultural policy. If we do not want the farmers to leave the platteland or if we want to ensure that there are no fewer farmers on the platteland than there were formerly, then we must change the whole basic agricultural structure. Does the hon. member want to suggest that all the farmers who have disappeared from the platteland, cleared out because they suffered economic setbacks? No, many of the farmers who cleared out of the farming industry gave up farming precisely because there were many other farmers who were doing very well and who were in a position to offer them a high price for their land. The hon. member for Gardens is aware of that. When did the greatest number of farmers give up farming in the sheep areas in the Karoo? Did they do so when wool was reasonably cheap? No, most of them cleared out of the agricultural industry at a time when wool was fetching the highest price because other farmers were able to make high offers for their land. Surely that is a fact which is generally known.

It was usually the small farmer.

Yes. I admit that it is usually the small farmer who does not have such a large income. He gets an attractive offer from a big farmer who is able to pay him more for his land and he then decides to sell. Surely that is perfectly clear. Is the Government expected to take steps to ensure that farmers do not quit the agricultural industry on a larger scale? Must it say to the farmer, “You can no longer operate under a system of free enterprise; you may not own any more than a certain area of land; you may not buy out the small farmer”? I should like hon. members to state their attitude clearly. I should like to hear their views. Must we place a restraint on the free enterprise of the farmer? Must we prohibit him from buying up the land of other farmers? It is nonsensical to allege that all the farmers who cleared out of the agricultural industry were people who became bankrupt or who could not make a living. Where drought conditions or other circumstances have made it difficult for the farmer to carry on with his farming, certain measures have been taken by the State to enable him to continue to farm as long as possible. He has been granted financial assistance. If a farmer is approached by another farmer who has accumulated a great deal of capital and who has done so precisely because of the high prices of agricultural produce, and he is offered a price which is far above the income value of his farm, it is only natural that he will sell his farm because he can invest that money more profitably. But let us take another basic principle of our agricultural policy and see whether hon. members of the Opposition agree with it, and that is that the agricultural industry in South Africa must make the best use of its land and its manpower, in conjunction with all the other industries, and if, as the position has been throughout the years, there are certain people employed in the agricultural industry to-day whose services are not being used to the best advantage and those people can do better for themselves in the urban areas or in secondary industry or elsewhere, must the Government forbid those persons to quit the agricultural industry? I see the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) shakes her head.

Are you asking whether the Government should forbid people to quit the agricultural industry?

Yes.

Our whole argument is that they are being driven away from the farms by economic conditions.

The hon. member’s argument was that it was the Government’s fault that the platteland was becoming depopulated.

Yes.

Let me put this question now to the hon. member: Let us assume that a farmer who enjoys a high income wishes to buy the land of a smaller farmer at an uneconomic price. Must the Government prohibit him from buying it? There are cases where farmers also clear out of the agricultural industry as a result of other circumstances. After all, we know what the position was throughout the whole of the platte-land in South Africa. Some years ago we had the bywoner (share-cropper) system, and those bywoners were all registered as farmers. As a result of the better wages which they could earn in secondary industry those bywoners gradually disappeared from the rural areas because their labour could be put to better use in secondary industry. Must the Government forbid their absorption in those industries? No, I say that the basic policy in the agricultural industry is to make the best use of both manpower and land, in the interests of the whole economy of South Africa and not only in the interests of the agricultural industry as such.

I want to say a few words now on the question of the prices of agricultural products. Hon. members of the Opposition have consistently argued that the farmer can be kept on the platteland by giving him a higher price for his products, whether it is given to him by passing the increase on to the consumer or whether it is given to him by way of a subsidy paid by the State. They maintain that if the price is better more farmers will remain on the platteland. But even this argument, since there are different categories of farmers, is not correct because the one farmer, on the same prices as that received by the other farmer for his products, makes a good living; he makes money and he makes headway. The other farmer who gets the same price makes a poorer living—for many reasons. His farm may be small perhaps; he does not have the overall large income which the other farmer has; he does not have as much initiative as the other farmer; he is not as capable as the other farmer, and he does not therefore earn the same income. Assuming that the price is pushed up still further, then it will still mean that the profits of the big farmer who has more initiative and who has a bigger farm will be much higher than they are to-day and he will be in a very much better position to buy out the small or the poor farmer. This method therefore offers no solution for the problem of depopulation. If we are honestly and sincerely seeking a solution to this problem it will not help us to fight against windmills and to put forward half-baked ideas. We should try to evolve a scheme which will offer a solution.

The argument has been used here that the percentage which the agricultural industry contributes to the national income has decreased over the years. But that is a phenomenon which one finds not only in South Africa; it is a phenomenon which one finds in all the developed countries of the world. In America, for example, the percentage which the agricultural industry contributes to the American national income is only 4 per cent. But it goes much further than that; in America the policy of the State is to induce 100,000 farmers to leave the rural areas within the next five years, whereas in this country our policy is the very opposite, i.e. to keep the farmers on the platteland as far as possible, and to give every possible aid to the agricultural industry to achieve that end. But even with the provision of this aid we are still faced with the position that the farmer who is in a better economic position will be able to buy out the farmer who is in a weaker economic position. Let me also add that one simply cannot prevent people from clearing out of the agricultural industry. Just as little as one can prevent a small baker or any other person who runs a personal business from giving up that business, so little can one prevent farmers from giving up farming from time to time. One cannot keep on the platteland all the farmers who are there to-day unless one is prepared to alter the whole basic structure of the agricultural industry, unless one is prepared to say that instead of allowing free enterprise and instead of allowing people to own large tracts of land, one is going to pass legislation to provide that the farming community must consist of small farmers who make their living solely out of their labour on the platteland. If that is our attitude then we must make it known that that is our policy and we must accept it as our policy.

What do you say?

I say “No”. I have just explained what my attitude is. Our policy is that the farmer as an entrepreneur with a free hand must be able to make his own choice, and if under this system of free enterprise he can make his own choice, we will still find that in certain cases farmers, exercising their own free choice, using their own capital and relying on their own capabilities, will prove failures. If we want to obviate the possibility that some of them may clear out then we must not allow them a free choice because once we do so we cannot stop this tendency. If the United Party’s attitude is that that is what we must do, then they should say so. I just want them to state their attitude. I am stating mine here, and I think I do so on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the National Party. We regard the farmer as an entrepreneur with a free hand and our attitude is that he should retain his right to free enterprise. If he wants to retain his right to free enterprise, then it is up to him to take the risk of failure or otherwise. The Government makes available sufficient assistance to the farmer. I do not have the time to-day to go into all the different forms of aid which the Government makes available to the farmer. We have our technical extension services; there is the Farmers’ Assistance Board, there is the State Advances Office, there are crop loans, production loans, loans to purchase land, and there are subsidies for various purposes. The Government is doing everything in its power, by means of these different forms of aid, to keep the farmer on the land as an entrepreneur with a free hand. If the farmer, under this system of free enterprise, makes a capital investment in land, an investment which gets him into difficulties, or if, because of his own inefficiency, he cannot make a success of his farming venture, in spite of all the technological aid which is placed at his disposal, then the Government cannot be expected to keep him on the land under a system of free enterprise, at the expense of the whole of the population. Surely that is perfectly clear. These various forms of aid are there to assist him as much as possible. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Lands places many farmers on the land. I extracted certain figures the other day relating to one of our settlements, where land was allotted for R220,000 over a period of 8-9 years from 1950 to 1958, but recognized valuators of the Land Bank and other bodies valued that land in 1959 at R2,000,000. In other words, it has been calculated that actually this land was given to those people for one-tenth of its true value. If a person is unable to make a success of his farming after having been given a smallholding under those conditions, must the State then subsidize and give him further assistance so that he can retain that smallholding? Surely in those circumstances he should quit. He is placed there as an entrepreneur with a free hand. He is under a certain amount of supervision to begin with but later on he has to manage his own business.

I say therefore that at this stage I cannot see that any useful purpose can be served by a commission of enquiry because, as has been pointed out correctly by hon. members on this side of the House, our agricultural industry is organized from top to bottom. The S.A. Agricultural Union knows the position of every branch of the industry and it is acquainted with every commodity problem in the agricultural industry. They are acquainted with every financial problem. There is the Woolgrowers’ Association which forms part of the Agricultural Union. Then there are the provincial agricultural unions. These bodies do not hesitate to come to the Minister every day to discuss their problems. Apart from these bodies we have our Government Departments. We have our Department of Agricultural Technical Services which passes on information to the farmers, information which formerly they had to pick up from their own experience. I admit that many of our farmers have made a great contribution to our increased production, but on the other hand let us also be grateful; let us recognize the work which is being done by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, by Onderstepoort and by our entymologists. Let us be grateful and acknowledge that they have made a tremendous contribution in promoting our agricultural industry, even though they have done so behind the scenes. Those different forms of aid are all available to our farmers. There are, of course, certain problems with which we still have to cope but research in that connection is being undertaken every day.

It must be remembered, however, that periodically we in South Africa have other problems as well, problems other than economic problems which are caused by poor prices. There are certain parts of our country which suffer enormously because of periodic droughts and many farmers get into difficulties as a result of drought conditions. During the past few years this Government has done more than any previous Government ever did to tide those farmers over this periodic spell of hardship. I say that without any fear of contradiction.

Certain schemes which are of a permanent character have been put into operation to overcome these difficulties and problems. With the organization that we have in the agricultural industry, with the agricultural organization of the farmer himself, with the control boards, with the various departments providing extension services and doing research, I see no reason for the appointment of a commission to inquire into the agricultural industry because I feel that most branches of our agricultural industry have in fact been getting their share in this new expansion and development.

The hon. the Minister has not told us of any positive steps that have been taken to keep the small farmer on the land. We on this side of the House gave him chapter and verse as to the number of farmers who had left the land and who had drifted back to the towns. The Minister gave a number of reasons the main one being that the fact that farmers left their farms was because of the high price they paid for their land. But who sets the price of land to a great extent in this country, Sir? Is it not the Lands Department, and the Government itself through the Land Bank, mortgage bonds, valuations and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development through the purchase of land over the last few years in many of the platte-land areas? But I do not want to take that any further. I feel the Minister has not given us any positive reasons that we can attack because he has not told us of any positive steps his Government has taken.

I want to come to matters not raised during this debate up to the present, but before doing so, I just want to reply to a point made by the hon. members for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) and Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) when they said that the motion of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) was a motion of no-confidence in organized agriculture and the Marketing Act. Mr. Speaker, it is no such thing. It is plainly and very simply a motion of no-confidence in the present Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing because the success or otherwise of the application of the Marketing Act must be sought in the final marketing of the products and the prices as fixed by this Minister. I want to deal with a product that does not come under the Marketing Act but under the Dairy Industries Control Act where the prices are fixed by this Minister. There has been a tremendous setback in that industry which forms a great part of the agricultural industry of this country. I refer to the dairy industry of the Republic. Three years ago this hon. Minister saw fit to drop the price of butterfat and industrial milk by 2d. per pound. I and others on this side of the House warned the hon. the Minister of the dangers of dropping the price because there was a very slight over-production at that particular time. We had our quota to the United Kingdom cut because we had left the Commonwealth for one thing and when the quotas were re-allocated we got a lower quota. We were one of the countries affected. Certain Commonwealth countries were affected but we were more affected than Commonwealth countries. Because we had that slight over-production—most of our dairy products are consumed in this country—the dairy producer, especially the industrial milk producer who had proved through his cost of production figures that he was already working on a non-profit margin, was penalized to such an extent that he was producing at a loss. On top of that he was hit by drought conditions in that particular year. We warned the hon. the Minister that this was going to cause tremendous hardship to the producers of dairy products. But he took no notice and said that one could not disregard the principle of supply and demand and that if the price was brought down there would be higher consumption. On top of that the Dairy Industries Control Board started a countrywide campaign of “Eat more Butter”, “Eat more Cheese”. They spent a tremendous amount of money of the dairy products producer on that campaign. They had what was known as cheese weeks and cheese days throughout the country. After spending a great deal of that money, when the public was getting conditioned to eating more butter and cheese, we found that we were in short supply. That was very bad organization, Sir. The result was that we had to import Australian butter and New Zealand cheese. The funds from our levies subscribed by those already hit, and very hard hit, were being used to increase the consumption of products that we were importing from other countries at that stage. If that was not a very poor form of campaign, then I do not know what is. Instead of restoring the 2d. per lb. and also the industrial milk price to what is had been when they were producing on a marginal basis they left the price at below cost of production so that those farmers were left in the position where they were not making a reasonable profit at all.

Then I come to the fresh milk producer who is on a fixed price throughout the country, a price which is fixed not at a minimum and maximum but at a maximum only. The producer in Natal was feeling the pinch very much. Last year we experienced a tremendous shortage in Natal, as I mentioned in this House at the time. For a period they were thousands of gallons of fresh milk short in Durban per day. Permission had to be given to introduce milk from unlicensed premises into Durban, something which was not fair to those people who had produced, at a very high cost, from specially licensed premises, premises which were subject to the very closest inspection and which had called for a high capital investment.

Now, Sir, that is just one side. There are many more products which are not under any control at all. So we need this investigation. There is the vegetable producer.

Debate having continued for 2½ hours, the motion lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 30 (4).